I was writing tests for signatures and came across this ambiguity:
:(:$x)
Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
and a single required positional named $x?
--
Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://gaal.livejournal.com/
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
> >Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
> >and a single required positional named $x?
>
> "A default invocant" prolly doesn't make sense there... There's
> nothing to "default" to. :-)
What invocant i
larry schreef:
> +Likewise, from the fact that list context flattens inner arrays and
> +lists, it follows that a reduced assignment does no special syntactic
> +dwimmery, and hence only scalar assigments are supported. Therefore
> +
> +[=] $x, @y, $z, 0
> +[+=] $x, @y, $z, 1
> +
> +are e
This is on trunk, revision 14585, using Windows XP and Visual C++.
I have GDBM available as "gdbm.lib" which is successfully tested for in
config/auto/gdbm.pm.
Determining if your platform supports gdbm...
...
gdbm is working.
(yes) .done.
For some reason
Applied as r14586.
Jerry Gay was having a similar issue yesterday.
Anyone with gcc on win32 care to verify it works for them still?
Some of this duplicate (or disparate) build logic will hopefully go
away as the build system gets cleaned up in the coming weeks.
On Sep 12, 2006, at 12:27 PM,
Will Coleda wrote:
> Applied as r14586.
>
> Jerry Gay was having a similar issue yesterday.
>
> Anyone with gcc on win32 care to verify it works for them still?
>
> Some of this duplicate (or disparate) build logic will hopefully go away
> as the build system gets cleaned up in the coming weeks.
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> I'm trying to decide if
>
>sub ($self: $just_a_named_param)
>
> can meaningfully put anything into $self. It seems doubtful, and it should
> probably be
>
>submethod ($self: $just_a_named_param)
I agree. If
sub ($self: $foo)
works than it reduces privacy, sinc
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote:
: larry schreef:
:
: > +Likewise, from the fact that list context flattens inner arrays and
: > +lists, it follows that a reduced assignment does no special syntactic
: > +dwimmery, and hence only scalar assigments are supported. Therefore
Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An other acceptable solution would be to create a backwards
> compatible P6 CGI.pm and create a new Web.pm with an all new
> interface, like Mark suggested. But then this new module cannot
> profit of the popularity of the name "CGI.pm" and many people wi
Author: larry
Date: Tue Sep 12 11:07:01 2006
New Revision: 11969
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
New X operator and metaoperator.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Author: larry
Date: Tue Sep 12 11:20:04 2006
New Revision: 11971
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Further clarifications and fixups.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.p
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 13:31:55 -0700, Michael Snoyman wrote:
> I agree completely. In that vein, I think that one thing a lot of web
> developers would like to have available more easily would be session
> management. In PHP it's as simple as $_SESSION['key'] = 'value'. I
> understand that C
At 3:21 PM +0200 9/12/06, Thomas Wittek wrote:
So I think that there should be a (well designed) module for those lower
level (donkeywork) tasks and only for those (so definitely no
HTML-generation...).
I strongly suggest that if we're going to do things this way, which
sounds like a good idea
Steffen Schwigon schrieb:
> Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> An other acceptable solution would be to create a backwards
>> compatible P6 CGI.pm and create a new Web.pm with an all new
>> interface, like Mark suggested.
> I would strongly expect the CGI module to do the same as it did
> Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> An other acceptable solution would be to create a backwards
>> compatible P6 CGI.pm and create a new Web.pm with an all new
>> interface, like Mark suggested.
My 0.02 ₪: CGI.pm will be better off redesigned and cleaned up, and
for those wanting comp
jerry gay wrote:
>>
> but C does *not* work.
> i find that annoying.
> either make the syntax for methods different than ops (eg C<$S0.say()>)
> or make C an opcode,
> or dodge the syntax issue and make C a method on all register types.
>
> forcing me to convert the int to a string in order to aut
On 9/12/06, Leopold Toetsch via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Thanks, applied - r14594.
* moved to tools/dev directory
* be sure to 'make testr' before looking at script results *but*
do you have any hint on how to get this?
* disassemble did hang here during that - I killed it after it
a
> +Note that only the first term of an C operator may reasonably be
> +an infinite list.
Now all we need is a variant that does the diagonal order and we'll be
home and dry.
'a'..* diagX 1..*
->
['a', 1],
['a', 2],
['b', 1],
['a', 3],
['b', 2],
['c', 1],
['a', 4],
['b', 3],
['c', 2],
['d', 1],
Larry Wall schreef:
> Dr.Ruud:
>> larry:
>>> +Likewise, from the fact that list context flattens inner arrays and
>>> +lists, it follows that a reduced assignment does no special
>>> syntactic +dwimmery, and hence only scalar assigments are
>>> supported. Therefore +
>>> +[=] $x, @y, $z, 0
>>
Larry Wall wrote:
> : There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
> $obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
>
> .META is more correct at the moment.
>
Does making it all upper caps really help? It's still a pollution of the
method space, any way that you
在 Sep 12, 2006 6:59 PM 時，Gaal Yahas 寫到：
What invocant is constructed in this signature then?
method foo ($just_a_named_param)
Is the signature for &foo really the same as that of bar?
sub bar ($just_a_named_param)
As Larry said, they shouldn't be the same; the first one is
&f
2006/9/12, Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
and a single required positional named $x?
"A default invocant" prolly doesn't make sense there... There's
nothing to "default" to. :-)
Audrey
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:59:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: > >Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant
: > >and a single required positional named $x?
: >
: > "A default invocant" prolly doesn't make
Author: larry
Date: Tue Sep 12 07:51:14 2006
New Revision: 11965
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Allow [=] and [+=].
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod(orig
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > : There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
> > $obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
> >
> > .META is more correct at the moment.
> >
>
> Does making it all upper cap
Author: audreyt
Date: Tue Sep 12 19:35:59 2006
New Revision: 11974
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
* S03: Typographical and stylistic cleanups.
Also, clarify that identity values of reduce hyperoperators
is more logically defined by the way of a multi variant of zero
arity,
Author: larry
Date: Tue Sep 12 21:09:33 2006
New Revision: 11975
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
tweaks to crossop syntax
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
svn log, speaking on larry's behalf (>):
+The string concatenating form is:
+
+ X~X <1 2> # 'a1', 'a2', 'b1', 'b2'
+
+The C operator desugars to something like:
+
+[~]«( X <1 2> ) # 'a1', 'a2', 'b1', 'b2'
...and later...
+The C variant crosses the arrays but concatenates
At 11:07 AM -0700 9/12/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+=head1 Cross operators
+
+The final metaoperator is the C metaoperator. It applies the
+modified operator across all permutations of its list arguments. All
+C operators are of list infix precedence, and are list associative.
AT LAST!
I re
29 matches
Mail list logo
