[perl #78626] Patch: support higher arity in reduce()

2010-10-27 Thread via RT
# New Ticket Created by Stephen Mosher # Please include the string: [perl #78626] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=78626 > Hi, Attached is a diff against rakudo/src/core/Any-list.pm which adds support to re

multi vars

2010-10-27 Thread yary
>From S12- which I'm just reading due to a blog post from jwrthngtn, I haven't thought this through- --- You can have multiple multi variables of the same name in the same scope, and they all share the same storage location and type. These are declared by one proto declaration at the top, in which

Re: Tweaking junctions

2010-10-27 Thread Martin D Kealey
I have to admit to feeling uneasy about the whole action-at-a-distance effect that junctions are capable of producing. They sit around pretending to be a scalar, only to pop up and wreak havoc with ones expectations of linearity when you're not expecting it. That unexpected-action-at-a-distance i

Re: [perl #78626] Patch: support higher arity in reduce()

2010-10-27 Thread Darren Duncan
Stephen Mosher (via RT) wrote: Attached is a diff against rakudo/src/core/Any-list.pm which adds support to reduce() for higher-arity functions. It ensures arity-list agreement and is generally safe. Other than the test, the functionality was already present... it needed two lines commented out

Re: Tweaking junctions

2010-10-27 Thread Damian Conway
Martin D Kealey asked: > Or do we not invert junctions, and run the risk of unexpected > action-at-a-distance instead? I think our current approach is correct. That is: we "invert" junctions on operators that are themselves intrinsically inverted (such as !=, !~~, !<), but do not invert on those