Author: larry
Date: Sat Jan 27 00:59:58 2007
New Revision: 13540
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Major reorganization of S03.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Steve Lukas (>):
Hi @larry,
I want to remember to my proposal from september 2006.
It targets on changing S04. The discussion is summarized on:
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/09/weekly_perl_6_mailing_list_sum_3.html
So, please change S04 as discussed.
I, too, would like to point to
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 10:23:03AM +0100, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> my $foo;
> # ...later in the same scope...
> my $foo; # illegal Perl5, legal Perl6
No, that's perfectly legal in perl5; it just generates a warning:
use warnings;
my $x = 1;
my $f1 = sub { $x };
my $x = 2;
my $f2
Dave (>), Carl (>>):
> my $foo;
> # ...later in the same scope...
> my $foo; # illegal Perl5, legal Perl6
No, that's perfectly legal in perl5; it just generates a warning:
use warnings;
my $x = 1;
my $f1 = sub { $x };
my $x = 2;
my $f2 = sub { $x };
printf "f1=%d f2=%
Carl Mäsak writes:
> my $foo;
> # ...later in the same scope...
> my $foo; # illegal Perl5, legal Perl6
That isn't illegal in Perl 5. It yields the warning:
"my" variable $foo masks earlier declaration in same scope
but it does work.
Smylers
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 12:59:59AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +As in C, these operators increment or decrement the object in question
> +either before or after the value is taken from the object, depending on
> +whether it is put before or after. Also as in C, use of multiple side
> +effec
Author: larry
Date: Sat Jan 27 13:27:55 2007
New Revision: 13541
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
Log:
Note that @ish quoting forms can save wear and tear on the <' '> keys.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S05.pod
=
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 06:18:50PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Is it defined that $a + $b evaluates the arguments in any particular order?
> Even guaranteeing that either the left or the right gets completely evaluated
> first would be better than C :-)
In C, that is deliberately left undefined
