On Sunday 02 September 2001 07:49 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
>
> For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I could make
> a good language case for and against it. It adds overhead
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I could make
a good language case for and against it. It adds overhead on sub calls,
which is a bad thing generally. (I'd be OK with the
On Sunday 02 September 2001 06:27 pm, raptor wrote:
> ]- yep I didn't thougth about that I can be sure I'm at the last
> iteration only with some sort of 'callback' which will be called at the
> exit of the loop... but not as some sort of generalised-check condition..
Umm, it's simpler than t
On Sunday 02 September 2001 08:18 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 07:47:37PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
> >
> > The following parses, but doesn't do anything, including warn.
> >
> > my $a = sub ($) { print };
>
> Wa
| I don't know if (and if so, how) you would see if you were on the last
| iteration. (And would that be last, as in the very last argument passed
in,
| or last, as in you're not going to iterate again?)
]- yep I didn't thougth about that I can be sure I'm at the last
iteration only with some
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 07:47:37PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
>
> The following parses, but doesn't do anything, including warn.
>
> my $a = sub ($) { print };
Warning because you said you take an argument and then did nothing
with it...
Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
The following parses, but doesn't do anything, including warn.
my $a = sub ($) { print };
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
A thread from last July, WRT bug ID 2717.003 [1], suggested that we may
want to revisit the behavior of flow control expressions within the context
of a subroutine.
The current behavior is to find the closest (labelled) enclosing loop
(dynamically, not lexically), and treat that as the ta
> -Original Message-
> From: raptor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 1:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: LangSpec: Statements and Blocks [first,last]
>
>
> hi,
>
> As we read in Damian Conway- Perl6-notes, there will by a
>
On Sunday 02 September 2001 01:47 pm, raptor wrote:
> As we read in Damian Conway- Perl6-notes, there will by a var-iterator
> that can be used to see how many times the cycle has been "traversed" i.e.
>
> foreach my $el (@ary) {
>.. do something
> print $#; <--- print the index (or
hi,
As we read in Damian Conway- Perl6-notes, there will by a var-iterator that
can be used to see how many times the cycle has been "traversed" i.e.
foreach my $el (@ary) {
.. do something
print $#; <--- print the index (or print $i )
}
shall we have :
foreach my $el (@ary) {
|
| > !< and !>
|
| How is !< different from >=?
]- the way of Expression or syntax-sugar if u like it :"), and is faster to
prononce :")
if, if not, unless
bigger, smaller, equal
less than or equal, bigger than or equal
not bigger, not smaller ...etc.
Personally I almost always make error wh
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> I'm waiting for someone to say that in tri-state logic, '!<' != '>='
That's what I thought it was. "$a !< $b" might be "!defined($a) || $a >= $b".
In SQL this is "$a IS NULL or $a >= $b".
- Ken
Damian Conway wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>> The one thing I'm curious about is whether different syntactic
>> conventions affect the dispatcher or whether this is all just
>> sugar for a single dispatch.
>
> Multiple dispatch is certainly not (practically) implementable via single
> dispatch
> -Original Message-
> From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 8:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: !< and !>
>
>
> Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why is it ">=" and not "=>"?
>
> Because in English, it's "less than or equ
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is it ">=" and not "=>"?
Because in English, it's "less than or equal to" not "equal to or less
than," I presume.
> Simply trying to remember the order of characters might be (a bit of) a
> pain. That problem doesn't exist with "!<" and "!>".
Every
On Sunday 02 September 2001 12:48 am, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> i don't consider sort/map/grep blocks to be basic like the others. also
> sort/map can take espressions which is a different syntax.
Yes, I'm not addressing sort/map/grep/do as much as demonstrating a block
that appears in one of those
On 01 Sep 2001 14:40:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Sterin, Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>>> How is !< different from >=?
...
>It's the same number of characters. How can it be more convenient?
Why is it ">=" and not "=>"? Why "=<" and no
18 matches
Mail list logo
