Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:42:33AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: However, I think we are now officially *way* off topic for Perl6...
Not really--a Klingon army is a *parallel* processor, and just because
one Klingon dies doesn't mean the whole army should suddenly die too.
Tradi
Jon Lang wrote:
So you're suggesting that
A op* n
should map to
[op] A xx n
I don't think that that mapping works for Thomas' proposal of a
repetition count on post-increment operator. I.e.
$a ++* 3
is not the same as
[++] $a xx 3
(which I think is a syntax error)
and also not
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
The following arose out of a discussion on #perl6. Junctions are new and
different from anything I have encountered, but I cant get rid of the
feeling that there needs to be some more flexibility in their use to
make them a common programming tool.
I strongly agree w
[I’d been planning to put this suggestion on hold until the spec is
sufficiently complete for me to attempt to implement it as a module. But
people are discussing this again, so maybe it's not just me. I apologize
if I appear to be beating a dead horse...]
Jon Lang wrote:
Maybe you could hav
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Thinking about Jon Lang's -1|+1 example in another way, I wondered about
simultaneous conditions.
Consider
$x = any (1,2,5,6)
How do we compose a conditional that asks if any of this set of
eigenstates are simultaneously both > 2 and < 5?
Clearly the desired answer
Jon Lang wrote:
[proposal that conditional statements should collapse junctions]
$x = +1 | -1;
if $x > 0 { say "$x is positive." }
else { say "$x is negative." }
I suspect that both codeblocks would be executed; but within the first
block, $x == +1, and within the second codeblock,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
[I] wrote:
So I'd vote for going with simple semantics that are easy to explain --
that is, don't attempt implicit junctional collapse. Provide operators to
collapse when needed, but don't attempt to be too clever.
While it's easier to find clever programmers than to write
Ovid wrote:
I'd like to see something like this (or whatever the equivalent Perl 6 syntax
would be):
class PracticalJoke does Bomb does SomeThingElse {
method fuse() but overrides { ... }
}
The "overrides" tells Perl 6 that we're overriding the fuse() method
> from either Bomb or Som
Leon Timmermans wrote:
Reading this discussion, I'm getting the feeling that filename
literals are increasingly getting magical, something that I don't
think is a good development. [...]. I don't want to deal with Windows'
strange restrictions on characters when I'm working on Linux. I don't
want
The definition of the Complex type seems a little weak. A few things:
To get the Cartesian components of the value there are two methods ("re"
and "im"). In contrast there is just one method "polar" to return the
polar components of the value I'm not sure that this asymmetry is a good
thing. C
Moritz Lenz wrote:
our multi method polar (Complex $nim: --> [ Real $mag where 0..Inf,
Real $angle where -π ..^ π ]) is export { ... }
If you put this into a signature, it is checked on every call to that
method and thus slows down execution. If you want a formalization that's
not part of th
yary wrote:
At 00:15 +0100 12/17/09, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Not quite, .abs returns one of the polar coordinates (the magnitude), so
only a method is missing that returns the angle.
Any ideas for a good name?
Would a method called "phi" with a unicode synonym "φ" be too obtuse?
Anything wrong
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
[cut] Contrast with Rat which has both separate accessors and the
"nude" method (a name that could possibly be improved to avoid
adult-content filters)
suggestions welcome.
Attempting to generalize: what we want is an operator that extracts
Jon Lang wrote:
my ($num, $denom) = $num.^attr; # $num.WHAT == Ratio;
my ($mag, $phase) = Complex::Polar($z).^attr;
my ($re, $im) = Complex::Cartesian($z).^attr;
my ($x, $y) = $vector.^attr »·« ( [1, 0], [0, 1] );
If I'm reading this right, the .^attr is exposing implementation details
Doug McNutt wrote:
my ($x, $y) = $vector «·« ( [1, 0], [0, 1] );
After a while I became resigned to the fact that dot and cross
products were not what was being offered. Instead a product of two
vectors was to be simply a component by component multiply that
produced another "vector" of the s
Todd Olson wrote:
At 14:54 -0500 2009-12-17, Jon Lang wrote:
And really, my whole point is that the implementation details are
(conceptually) the only thing that distinguishes Complex::Polar from
Complex::Cartesian.
All though both e^(i ¼) and e^(i 3 ¼) evaluate to -1 + 0i
it is often u
# New Ticket Created by "Dave Whipp"
# Please include the string: [perl #71846]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=71846 >
By principle of least surprise, all three of these should result in
th
masak wrote:
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Numeric.pod
Log:
[S32/Numeric] removed method form of srand
Overwhelming consent on #perl6 about this.
- multi method srand ( Real $seed: )
multi srand ( Real $seed = default_seed_algorithm())
Seed the generator C uses. C<$seed>
Moritz Lenz wrote:
1) A RNG class (don't really care what the name is, for now)
2) An instance of that in $*RAND (which you can temp())
3) rand() and srand() act on $*RAND
4) It should be easy to create instances of the RNG to use in your own
class.
The sounds reasonable. The one thing I'd add
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Am 27.04.2010 06:31, schrieb Stéphane Payrard:
When doing an analyse of a sample parse tree, I note that it is
cluttered by the reduction of optional subrules
to generate a zero length parse subtree. That is, rules with a '?'
quantifier matching zero time.
Currently the ? q
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Hi,
The threading model topic still needs lots of thinking, so I decided to
try out some ideas.
Every concurrency model has its advantages and drawbacks, I've been
wondering about this ideas for a while now and I think I finally have a
sketch. My primary concerns were:
1 -
nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote:
There are very few algorithms that actually benefit from using even low
hundreds of threads, let alone thousands. The ability of Erlang (and go
an IO and many others) to spawn 100,000 threads makes an impressive demo
for the uninitiated, but finding practical
nigelsande...@btconnect.com wrote:
From that statement, you do not appear to understand the subject matter
of this thread: Perl 6 concurrency model.
If I misunderstood then I apologize: I had thought that the subject was
the underlying abstractions of parallelism and concurrency that perl6
# New Ticket Created by "Dave Whipp"
# Please include the string: [perl #76602]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=76602 >
(this is really a perl6 spec (S32) bug, not specifically rakudo ...
but r
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
Was my specific proposal en
Moritz Lenz wrote:
I fear what Perl 6 needs is not to broaden the range of discussion even
further, but to narrow it down to the essential points. Personal opinion
only.
OK, as a completely serious proposal, the semantics of "for 0..10 { ...
}" should be for the compiler to complain "sorry, t
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
is treated as
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say "0.0 .. 1.0" instead.
-- Darren Duncan
That would be inconsistent. $x ~~ 0..1 means 0
Matthew wrote:
use base 16;
my $a = 10;
say $a;
puts the number 0x10 into $a, and outputs `10'. Here, say $a.fmt('%d')
would output `16'.
As someone who has implemented, and used, mini-languages with such a
feature, I'd say that the confusion that it would cause does
significantly outweigh
Damian Conway wrote:
Perhaps we need to think more Perlishly and reframe the entire question.
Not: "What threading model do we need?", but: "What kinds of non-sequential
programming tasks do we want to make easy...and how would we like to be
able to specify those tasks?"
The mindset that I u
Damian Conway wrote:
I've been thinking about junctions, and I believe we may need a small
tweak to (at least) the jargon in one part of the specification.
When this issue has been raised in the past, the response has been that
junctions are not really intended to be useful outside of the narr
Damian Conway wrote:
So I'm going to go on to propose that we create a fifth class of
Junction: the "transjunction", with corresponding keyword C.
[...]
say (^10 G[<] one(3,7));
3 4 5 6
which could also be:
say every(^10) < one(3,7);
# Every value up to 10 that's greater than 3 or
Damian Conway wrote:
Yes, Ted Z. pointed out to me that, as the name of this construct,
"every" has ambiguity and synonym issues. Other possibilities are:
select(@values) < one(3..7)
those(@values) < one(3..7)
whichever(@values) < one(3..7)
itemize(@values) < one(3..7)
extra
Buddha Buck wrote:
Is it too late in this discussion to point out that, in non-perl
usage, eigenstates are associated with the operator, not with the
value fed into the operator?
[cut]
So asking for the eigenstates of a quantum superposition is asking the
wrong object for the property.
Probab
On 11/17/2010 10:08 PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:
Dimensioned numbers as restrictive types are useful, for uncovering bugs,
including sometimes latent ones in ported code.
Duration is a fairly clear example of a dimensioned quantity, and I think we
should think twice about abandoning its dimension
Is something wrong with the try.rakudo.org server? When I attempt to use
it I get an alert box:
"An error has occured on the server. Error Message:
Cannot connect to Rakudo Eval Server at
/var/www/try.rakudo.org/frontend/try-rakudo.pl line 33."
301 - 337 of 337 matches
Mail list logo
