On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> How is !< different from >=?
>
> > It's just more syntax just like foo != bar
> > is the same as (foo > bar || foo < bar).
Not if you're using Quantum::SuperPositions ;-)
> > It might prove convenient to express the expression.
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:48:41PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 04:43:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Only augment //= in subroutine declarations, //= would also work.
> > I love the //= operator, but in the context of sub declarations it's
> > confusing as
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:14:25PM -0500, Me wrote:
> Hence the introduction of let:
>
> m/ { let $date := } /
>
> which makes (a symbol table like entry for) $date available
> somewhere via the match object.
Somewhere? where it appears in in the namespace of the caller.
Apparently there
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:13:55PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Err.. I don't think so.
>
> # Date.pm
> grammar Date;
> my $date;
> rule date_rule { $date := }
>
> # uses_date.p6 (hmm.. I wonder what a nice extension would be...)
> use Date;
> my $date
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:26:01AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >I think we could also allow
> >
> >@a [??] @b [::] @c
> >
> >But it's not clear whether we can parse
> >
> >@a = [undef][...]
>
> How would you parse:
>
> @a = @b[[5]];
>
> (My intent: for @a; @b -> $x i
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 07:54:01AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>> traits = any ( ... )
>> requirements = .. & ..
>> if $requirements eq $traits
>>
>> Should that be traits = all()?
>
> No. Because later we say (effectively):
>
> print "True love\n"
> if a
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 12:21:43PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> +&+|+^<<>>- bitwise (integer) operations
> +&= +|= +^= <<= >>=
I might have missed this, but if + introduces bitwise operations,
why aren't we using it in the shift operations?
+&+|+^
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:50:03PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Conversations on this mailing list are going to look a lot like
> perl6-language, except more aggressively focused on one narrow area at a
> time. Starting from data types & behaviors, moving on to operators,
> then blocks, conditi
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 04:49:42PM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Angel Faus wrote:
>> I think that the best way would be to create an schema of a language
>> manual,
>> and fill the documents as we proceed reviewing the Apocalypses.
>>
>> Something like this:
>>
>> Section 1 - Language Referenc
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 05:43:01PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> One thing the "golden-output" has going for it is that it gets into
>> and out of perl6 as quickly as possible. In other words, it relies on
>> perl6/parrot to do just about the mi
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:56:32PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> "Andrew Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Perl's tests are built on Test::More, it uses ok() and is() not
>> assert(). If we're going to be doing test cases for perl 6 then we
>> shou
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:22:37AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> But I would imagine that in order to be helpful at all to p6i and QA,
> we need to make the tests paranoid, tedious, and as encompassing as
> possible. There may be implementation-specific tests (like memleaks,
> etc.) we can't
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:16:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:06:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > Or if the leading = really must be required:
> >
> > =*> level1
> > =>> level2
> > =+>>> level3
> > =* level4
> > =>>> l
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:03:30PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
> This is just a tentative draft, so feel free to delete/add at your own
> taste.
>
> Does it look ok? Any comments? (including grammar errors, of course)
I've tweaked the first bit on literal integers a bit, see what you
think.
=subs
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
> For example, the integer 30 can be written in hexadecimal base in two
> equivalent ways:
>
> my $x = 16:1D
> my $x = 16:1.14
>
> These two representations are incompatible, so writing something like
> C<16:D.13> will generate a c
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:10:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 06:38:08PM +0000, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:26:06PM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
>>> For example, the integer 30 can be written in hexadecimal base in two
&
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:34:49PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
> wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
> the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
It's the difference
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:47:17AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> I've tried asking if lists are literals or not... but I've been Warnock'd.
I have comments to make on several things posted recently. I'm waiting
for my boss to ask our legal department if I can contribute. There may
be others doi
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 10:54:24PM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> Alright, I've incorporated everyone's suggestions and
> fixes, so everything should be correct now.
>
> Next, we need bool types, bool type conversion,
AFAIK the answer to that is either "Perl 6 doesn't have boolean types
—it it on
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 01:02:57PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>_01.23 # wrong
>01.23_ # wrong
Is _ not space eater, or was that not decided? If it is then aren't
these two just literals with space eaters.
andrew
--
Capricorn: (Dec. 22 - Jan. 19)
You will soon be unwillingly
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:01:36AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>>> 256#0_253_254_255 # base 256, NOT identical!
>>
>> is actually not allowed, no?
>
> Correct. It's an error, because radix > 36 mandates coloned form, and
> the colon-form digit 253254255 cannot exist in base 256. AND since
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Much nicer. This document holds together and makes more sense than
> the first (as it should). Nice work. A couple of corrections and
> nit-picks, though.
Indeed it is, much nicer.
>> This won't work for bases greater than 36, so
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:28:42PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >This won't work for bases greater than 36, so we
> >have too:
> Grammar: I think this should be "so we also have:", or possibly "so we
> also have...".
The colon is more correct, the ellipsis means this is a quotation that
I've sho
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 02:36:52PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > There are a few special cases for delimeters; specifically : and #.
> > : is not allowed because it might be used by custom-defined quoting
> s/is/are/; s/it/they/
> > operators to apply a property; # is allowed, but there cannot be a
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 06:58:12AM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> A string is formed when text is enclosed by a quoting operator.
> There are two types of quoting operators: interpolating and
> non-interpolating. In interpolating constructs, the value of a
> variable is substituted for the variable
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:59:32AM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> In the first string, perl will take each character in the first string
> literally and perform no special processing. However, the value of the
> variable $animal is inserted into the second string string in place of
> the text $ani
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:23:09AM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:27:16PM +0000, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:59:32AM -0500, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
> > > Non-Interpolating constructs are strings in which expressions do not
&g
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 03:46:25PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
>Non-Interpolating constructs are strings in which expressions do
>not interpolate or expand. The exception to this rule is the
>backslash character C<\>. A single backslash which is followed by
&
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 07:54:09PM +0200, arcadi shehter wrote:
> my take :
>
> non interpolating construct is a sequence of characters enclosed in
> delimiters for which perl switch off *any* perl-programm-like
> interpretation of the content. since perl have to find the end of
> this "I-am-not
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:09:35PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > '\ \ \h\e\l\l\o\ \ '
> >
> > '\'\\\ \\\ \\\h\\\e\\\l\\\l\\\o\\\ \\\ \''
>
> This is wrong. '\ \ \h\e\l\l\o\ \ ' gives you a string with nine
> backslashes.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:52:22PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:46:43AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Obviously, values are pure and therefrom spring "virtues," while
> > objects are but vile clay -- fallible constructs of a sinful man,
> > pathetically trying to re
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> And the Colorific class supposedly has a way to determine if two colors
> look about like each other. Again, I don't know how that works, but I
> don't need to.
>
>> AH> rule same_color($color is Colorific)
>> AH> {
>> AH>
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:58:32AM -0700, David Storrs wrote:
> /me shows ignorance yet again.
>
> For those of us who are not hardware types...what is "the new
> machine"? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market
> penetration at this point to be a worthy target? Or is the idea that,
>
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 02:15:45PM +, Dominic Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 12:21:50PM +, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2004, at 11:26, Clayton, Nik wrote:
>>> That's something the editor can care about. When I hit the TAB key it
>>> should just do whatever the house style
On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 05:49:47PM +0100, Fergal Daly wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 15:29, Tony Bowden wrote:
> > my $str1 = MyString->new("foo", "bar");
> > my $str2 = MyOtherString->new("foo", "baz");
>
> Now they _do_ differ by more than just class and it should be a fail, although
> I
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:17:32AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > There it goes again! That was *supposed* to be off-list!
> >
> > Well, now the entirety of the internals list can learn about English
> > grammar. Hoo-ray.
>
> You mean "American Grammar".
Hi
I'm sure I'm missing something fairly fundamental, but could someone
shed more light on the example:
# reduce list three-at-a-time
$sum_of_powers = reduce { $^partial_sum + $^x ** $^y } 0, @xs_and_ys;
specifically what is being iterated over, what gets bound and what does
it return?
I tho
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:37:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Ah yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Andrew
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:15:54PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> There would still be a use of a /f like flag, though -- treat all (...)
> like (?:...). That would make the regex more likely to be DFA-able, and
> is often what I want but I don't want to clutter up my regex with those
> nasty ?:'s eve
40 matches
Mail list logo
