At 04:39 PM 6/12/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > > David L. Nicol [made an akward metaphor with data as summer campers]
> > This is a considerably less simple problem than you (and *definitely* I)
> > might like. :(
>
>I appear to be suggesting that deferability be an
At 02:07 PM 6/12/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > I'm still trying to formulate a good set of rules on how I think active
> > data should perform under optimization to pass on to Larry.
> >
>
>How about, Active data doesn't get optimized. Static data doesn't
>care if y
At 03:55 PM 6/12/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>We can't simply tie in the perl5 sense, because tiedness does not persist
>accross assignment. So we need to either modify Assignment to allow more
>than value to get assigned, or we need to pass around something -- a magic
>coderef, perhaps --
Since I just proposed a new paradigm I'll try to apply it, before
darting down the hill and getting my sandwich.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > David L. Nicol [made an akward metaphor with data as summer campers]
> That's less easy than you might think. Quick:
>
>$bar = bar();
>
> is $bar acti
I think I'm repeating what has been said already but here goes.
After sending this I'm breaking for a sandwich. :)
for database data, the problem domain is limited sensibly. We want
to defer as many lookups as possible, so they can be sent as a bunch
rather than sent one by one, and we would l
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Graham wrote:
>
>> Now I may be wrong here, but I thought I remembered something about
>>
>> .foo being the same as $_.foo
>
> It's certainly a possibility.
>
>> In which case you could do
>>
>>for (%database.$accountnumber) {
>>
>
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm still trying to formulate a good set of rules on how I think active
> data should perform under optimization to pass on to Larry.
>
> Dan
How about, Active data doesn't get optimized. Static data doesn't
care if you access ir or
Excuse me, my mistake.
David Grove wrote:
> > If you have not been following this thread, then maybe that is
> > the reason for
> > the confused-sounding nature of your email.
> >
> > I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a
> > person", not
> > Vijay. I think Vijay was
Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> Consider the beauty of a fast and complex Irish ceili dance and how
> one clumsy beginner can easily break someone else's ankle, and you see
> that the very strict rules of that dance are necessary for the freedom
> to dance it without getting hurt. No rules lead to "
> > Well, I *have* been following the discussion. And to me, it looks indeed
> > like you, Simon, were indeed attacking ME on non-technical grounds.
> > Vijay just jumped in for him, like a lioness trying to protect her
> > kittens.
>
> Which he does from time to time, as do most of us, myself lik
Graham wrote:
> Now I may be wrong here, but I thought I remembered something about
>
> .foo being the same as $_.foo
It's certainly a possibility.
> In which case you could do
>
>for (%database.$accountnumber) {
>
>.interestearned += $interestrat
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Lateur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:48 AM
> To: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Social Reform
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:54:13 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:54:13 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
>> I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a person", not
>> Vijay.
>
>You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
>messages
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> > I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking
> a person", not
> > Vijay.
>
> You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
> messages: two of which are critical of Perl, two of which a
At 10:33 PM 6/11/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > You may wish to read this thread about lazy arrays and object
> > persistence to get an idea of what you're getting into.
> > http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/3024/2001/3/0/5427925/
>
>Taking lazy as far as we c
Folks, I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that it is expected
that we will all conduct ourselves in a generally professional and
courteous manner on these lists. If for some reason you find you can't do
this, do please take a step back until you can--if you don't a step will be
pro
At 09:15 AM 6/12/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>Dave Whipp asks:
>
> > Does it do short-circuit evaluation, too?
>
>I would certainly expect it to, yes.
It will, unless Larry specs it out otherwise.
Dan
--"it's l
> If you have not been following this thread, then maybe that is
> the reason for
> the confused-sounding nature of your email.
>
> I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a
> person", not
> Vijay. I think Vijay was the one pointing out that this person ("Me") was
> contrib
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a person", not
> Vijay.
You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
messages: two of which are critical of Perl, two of which are pretty
he
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:39:51PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Hopefully, we'll get a "with" operator and everything:
>
> with %database.$accountnumber {
>
> .interestearned += $interestrate * .balance
>
> }
>
> anything short of that, in my opinion, is merely trad
20 matches
Mail list logo
