--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> . . .
> -Such an "eigenmethod" is delegated to C<.meta> just as method like
> . . .
> +Such an I is always delegated to C<.meta> just as
changing "eigenmethod" to I should also change "an"
to "a":
+Such a I is always delegated to C<.meta> just as
^
Small
--- Stevan Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/23/06, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > People can diverge completely with completely incompatible
> > metaclasses that don't .do those roles, the only side effect
> > of which being that people who write code for the standard
> > Perl
How about one of these?
==
class Baz {
has $.a is restricted;
has $.b is controlled;
has $.c is unique;
has $.d is shared;
has $.e is queued;
has $.f is token;
...
}
--- John Drago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I asked this via the Google Groups interfa
--- John Drago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> James Mastros wrote:
> > I don't like the name synchronized -- it implies that multiple
> > things are happening at the same time, as in synchronized swiming,
> > which is exactly the opposite of what should be implied.
> > "Serialized" would be a nice n
--- John Drago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You mean "is parallel" as a synonym for "is async"?
>
> I think "is parallel" denotes something as usable by multiple threads
> simultaneously, "in parallel".
> "is serial" would denote that only one thread can use the $thing at a
> time, exclusively
--- John Drago <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. . .
> > class QueueRunner {
> >our sub process_queue(Code @jobs_in) {
> > my @ans is serial;
> > @ans.push map { async { &_() } } @jobs_in;
> > @ans;
> >}
> > }
> > my @answer = QueueRunner.process_job_queue( @jobs );
>
> Actual
--- Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/2/06, Paul Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > my @answer = map { async { &_() } } @jobs;
>
> That still seems too explicit. I thought we had hyperoperators to
> implictly parallelize for us:
>
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 03:51:45PM -0700, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : { no threads;
> :print @_.»();
> : }
>
> It seems a bit odd to use a construct for its syntactic sugar value
> but take away its semantics...
>
>
so back to foo("bar"). What's the default behavior? String doesn't Num,
does it? though is does convert if the value is good
Does that mean foo("123") should or should not dispatch to foo(Int)?
Or even foo(Num), for that matter Oy, I could see some headaches
around setting these rules in
I know, shoot me -- but just so we've discussed it and put it to bed,
maybe :if or _if or fi?
--- Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall writes:
> > Maybe we should just make statement modifiers uppercase and burn
> out
> > everyone's eye sockets. :)
>
> I like statement modifie
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arguably, we could probably admit
>
> $fh.pos = 10`bytes
>
> for the case of seeking from the begining. But I'd kind of like
>
> $fh.pos = 10
>
> to be considered an error.
It seems a logical extension also to say
$fh.pos += 10`byte
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . . . .
> Obviously, however @Larry decide it should be, is the way it'll be
> and nothing I can say will change that.
Au contraire -- that's what this list is for.
State your opinion, man! :)
> That said: this would suck. Badly.
> We should not be
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:28:31AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> : David Wheeler wrote:
> :
> : >But the first person to write <[a...]> gets what's comin' to 'em.
> :
> : Is that nothing (since '.' lt 'a'), or everything after 'a'?
>
> Might as well make
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
. . .
> <-[a..z]>
>
> should be allowed/encouraged/required. It greatly improves the
> readability in my estimation. The only problem with requiring .. is
> that people *will* write <[a-z]> out of habit, and we would probably
> have to outlaw the
--- David Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm looking in S09, and reading about junctions. It seems to me
> that if we have a junction $j which we use to index into an array
> or a hash, it should DWIM and return a junction of the corresponding
> values.
>
> @ar=[1..10];
> %hash=(a=>1,b
won't print.
if undef { print "undef\n"; } # I assume this won't print.
But my question is, will this:
if "\0" { print null\n"; } # Is this going to print, or not?
And if the answer is because I've somehow botched my syntax, please
correct it and answer
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges writes:
> > So, in P6:
> >
> > if 0 { print "0\n"; } # I assume this won't print.
> > if '0' { print "'0'\n"; } # I assume this won't pri
--- Spider Boardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At some point in history, Paul Hodges wrote (in part):
> ph> So a null byte is still Boolean true. Ugh, yarf, ack, etc.
>
> No. And it never has been (at least in my world view).
A valid point, though I reply:
my $x =
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
> > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
> > without any special chicanery on m
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges wrote:
>
> > Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason
> > I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE
> > without any special chicanery o
--- Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges wrote:
> > --- Spider Boardman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>You need ord() for character/grapheme/byte/whatever testing that's
> >>equivalent to what C does. Since C d
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . . . .
> Of the qualities you listed for Pumpking:
>
> "Look, I already told you! I deal with the goddamn customers so the
> engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing
> with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:18:12AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> : By the way, I trust this will be addressed (if it hasn't been
> : already):
> :
> : perl5 -le 'print "gah!" if exists $a{b}{c}; print "phooey!"
> : if exists $a{b}'
> :
> : perlfunc say
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... in fact, we may be limiting the creation of properties
> to predeclared names, so that even
>
> return 0 but ture;
>
> can be caught at compile time.
Excellent, so long as we can define new properties explicitly.
At the moment, I draw a comple
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 08:08:05PM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > ... in fact, we may be limiting the creation of properties
> : > to predeclared names, so that even
>
--- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall writes:
>
> > : if $x.foo { print "$x has property foo" }
> > : $x.bar = 1; # Or $x = $x but bar
> >
> > Or maybe the .bar notation is only for rvalues, and to create a
> > property you have to say:
> >
> > $x but= bar;
>
> I th
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:13:32AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : --- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > Larry Wall writes:
> : >
> : > > : if $x.foo { print "$x has property foo" }
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 08:50:57AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : hmm... lexical propertiesI've read the rest of the message,
> : and I see how this could be a problem. Just to be clear on it,
> : what exactly would it mean for
--- Paul Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> print "foo" is $x;
With deeply sincere apologies, that should have been
print "foo" if $x;
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
> : but it confuses me. Does that mean you're leaning more toward
> : allowing undeclared properties, or just that you're still trying
> : to give both sides of the argument thorough consideration?
>
> I'm not doing either of those things... :-)
Yayy! :)
> : Just for my vote, I want to be able
> : And "exportation"???
>
> Exportation is just aliasing some name inside a scope to somewhere
> outside the scope. Importatation is the same operation from the
> viewpoint of the importing scope.
I just wasn't thinking clearly when you said it the first time.
> Perl 5 didn't allow exportation
With apologies, I'm already seeing blunders. *sigh*
> my Baz @ray = ( Baz.new() );
No reason to type that. Should be
my @ray = ( Baz.new() );
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> > Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> > And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator
> > synopsis as of 3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym
> > for
> And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to æ?? and æ??
> in all cases.
lol I get the idea, but I foresee these unicode bits as becoming an
occasional sharp spot in my metaphorical seat of consciousness. :)
I am not seeing unicode.
__
Do you Y
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> > I am not seeing unicode.
>
> Don't worry because, and I honestly don't mean this disparagingly -
> by the time Perl 6 is ready for prime-time, you will. Larry got this
o
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hodges, Paul writes:
> > How about
> >
> > use Baz; # assume object type
> > my property foo;
> > my @bar of Baz is false but foo; # maybe not what you meant?
>
> Definitely not what you meant. Fortunately, the compiler will teach
> you a thing
--- Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incidently, I think I've caught on to _one_ of the concepts in the
> upcoming object-orientation proposal: linguistically, there's a triad
> of "basic verbs" - namely "be", "do", and "have". If I'm following
> things properly, one could think of an o
Larry said:
> The interesting question to me is what
>
> $ref = \$foo.as(Color);
>
> returns. It looks like a typed reference to me, but it's still
> a reference to the object in $foo, or can behave as one somehow.
> I don't think it should generate a reference to the bare role,
> because ro
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 03:10:30PM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : Ok, wait a sec. Does that mean different references to the same
> : critter can have differing sets of aspects?
> :
> : my Dog $Spot;
> : my $doggie
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 07:16:21AM -0800, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : $Spot = $visitor.nephew ?? $nicedog :: $meandog;
> :
> : Which brings up a small side note: that's a successfully applied
> : boolean context for $visitor.ne
It's a valid aside to note that, while people know what singular and
plural are, few people use or even refer much to the Greek use of a
special intermediary (the dual) when there were exectly two of
something...but the basic mindest of dichotomy is a fundament of the
language. (c.f. the men/de co
How about a Bundle::Common?
Streamline both the core and the inclusion of the most commonly used
modules? The core does include the CPAN module, right?
Personally, I *prefer* grabbing what I need piecemeal, but I understand
making it easy if possible
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
--- Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[[snips here and at end]]
> > . . . I have one suggestion: you might want to mention
> > the roundrobin function in the article on the zip function since
> > the two are very closely related.
>
> Thanks, Joe and Alberto.
>
> Even though the roundro
ably goofy syntax.
Paul
--- Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/18/07, Paul Hodges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > --- Adriano Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [[snips here and at end]]
> > > > . . . I have one sugges
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:41:54PM -0700, Paul Hodges wrote:
> : while length($ruler) < $len; # till there's enough
>
> There is no length function anymore.
duh. I knew that. Still thi
--- Alex Kapranoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Â ×òâ, 29/11/2007 â 07:18 +0100, James Fuller ïèøåò:
> > On Nov 28, 2007 8:46 PM, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 28 November 2007 10:59:30 James Fuller wrote:
> > > > I do not nec. agree with 'a particular grammer is not' part
This is another great example of why I love this list. :o]
I live in GA, so far out in the boonies that I can't get cable or
broadband at *all* except for by satellite. I've stopped trying to
explain what I do, because I start saying things like this, and they
glaze and visibly regret it, lol
duh. I'll learn to finish reading all the posts before adding my own
*someday*.
--- Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:23 AM +0300 12/11/07, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> >Darren Duncan wrote:
> >>At 9:04 AM +0300 12/10/07, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> >>>Equally, Something to replace
It also helps that you consistently make incisive observations and
contributions to conversations, even if they are a little tart
sometimes. :)
But on this general note, is there any current organization or location
where small problems are being parcelled out? I'd love to help, but my
time is as
Sounds like a good plan to me.
It's one of those bite-sized tasks that will grow with time, but will
make the overall process move along. Feel free to tag me offlist for
help, too.
--- ispyhumanfly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 Decembe
(full quote below)
> As Duncan said, the real question is what’s the point of having
> Bit when we also have both Int and Blob. I think none.
I can't find anything in the existing synopses about Blobs.
Probably looking in the wrong place, sorry.
Blobs can handle arbitrary numbers of bits?
If so,
I love this list. I wish I had more of value to contribute. =o]
But for those of you who don't want to read a long blather, this is
mostly opinion, hopefully sans soapbox. Feel free to skip to the end.
> What's with the sudden influx of people swooping in at the
> last minute and attacking design
--- Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hodges wrote:
> > http://perl6.org/doc/design/syn/S02.html still says:
> > "Intra-line comments will not be supported in standard Perl"
>
> This is wrong, since S02 also defines intra-line comments, u
A small tangent that might be relevant -- what's the current convention
for, say, putting several related "packages" in the same file?
In p5, I might write a great Foo.pm that loads Foo::Loader.pm and
Foo::Parser.pm and Foo::Object.pm; I'd usually drop them into seperate
files and have one load t
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides $^_ is just uglier than anything else I've seen today...
lol -- I thought of it as a rather cute peeking-wink with a cauliflower
ear, but that's probably much more cutesiness than we want to encourage
in our language design.
===
--- On Tue, 3/24/09, John Macdonald wrote:
> The graphene logo inspires me to suggest that a carbon
> ring be used as the logo for Parrot...
A carbon ring also has the advantages that it's regognizable as a very small
logo, even as just a favicon.ico, and can be reasonably if stylistically
r
--- On Tue, 3/24/09, jason switzer wrote:
> Basically, the perl community has largely adopted TIMTOWTDI
So how about a "Tim the Toady"? :)
===
Hodges' Rule of Thumb: Don't expect reasonable behavior from anything with a
thumb.
--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> . . .
> Somehow the current file test syntax, 'filename' ~~ :e, looks like a not
> well-though-out translation of Perl 5's syntax, -e 'filename'.
> Apart from totally feeling wrong to me,
Dunno about totally. I'm still trying to get a P6 mindset, but the
58 matches
Mail list logo
