[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > @arr3 = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i] # also @arr[^i] = @arr1[^i] +
@arr2[^i]
> >
> > Hyper-operators do this just fine.
> >
> Oh yes they do. The point is that the ^i-loop way is better (more powerful
and simpler at the same time).
>
> Maybe the examples where not good en
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
> a string "100_000" it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
> really weird if "10indigo" became 10i, "1e3foobar" became 1000, and
> "10_000" became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
That should be
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> On the other hand, there is a case to be made that any form of number that
> might get printed by perl's unformatted i.e.
>
> print 0+$var
>
> should be reconvertible back to a string via implicit numeric conversions of
> strings. I think the only thing that would af
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> For example, zero-filled numbers are not converted to octal because
> many text files contain zero-filled numbers.
>
> The idea that "0cat" is "0", but "0xat" is 10 will confuse a lot of folk.
It all should be at least possible to do, but not mandatory.
> If strings in nu
raptor wrote:
> | It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
> | a string "100_000" it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
> | really weird if "10indigo" became 10i, "1e3foobar" became 1000, and
> | "10_000" became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
>
> ]- Agree if u wan
>
> > @arr3 = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i] # also @arr[^i] = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i]
>
> Hyper-operators do this just fine.
>
Oh yes they do. The point is that the ^i-loop way is better (more powerful and simpler
at the same time).
Maybe the examples where not good enough.
Take the @b ^/ $a expressi
(sorry, I posted it before I finished...)
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Sure. 5 + 10i will probably evaluate to "5" + "10i" and just get
> constant-folded at compile time. ;)
That's good to know. :)
> >I don't think that imaginary numbers should have
> >their own class, like real ones have.
>
> If we
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:27 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> >David Nicol wrote:
> >
> > > RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> > >
> > > > > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > > > > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > > > > t
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 08:06:15PM +0200, Angel Faus wrote:
>
> Maybe i should better explain myself with an example.
>
> @arr3 = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i] # also @arr[^i] = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i]
Hyper-operators do this just fine.
> @arr4 = $v * @arr1[^i]
> $sum =+ @arr1[^i]
> @lengths_array =
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Given:
:
:> $a = 1;
:> @b = (1, 2, 3);
:
: Damian suggested that:
:
:> $a = $a ^+ @b
:>
:> becomes:
:>
:> $a = ($a, $a, $a) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
:> $a = (1, 1, 1) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
:> $a = (2, 3, 4)
:> $a = 4;
:
: Whereas Piers thought
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~cu200/Prover/index.html
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > to!
Also 123. I think that complex numbers, if happening automatically,
would only match
($realpart, $imaginarypart) = /^\b(\d
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> I haven't got any contact with NaN before, but when Tim pointed that
> NaN!=NaN is true in IEEE I thought that it does make sense. I see pros
> and cons and it's not so ugly and non-intuitive as it can look. When
> comparing $a and $b as numbers there is no need for $a==
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
> > a string "100_000" it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
> > really weird if "10indigo" became 10i, "1e3foobar" became 1000, and
> > "10_000" became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
Note that in
Hi to all,
I have been thinking lately about hyperoperators, and particulary
about its similarity with RFC 207 (Arrays: Efficient Array Loops)
For the ones that don't have the RFC in mind, I copy its abstract:
>This RFC proposes a notation for creating efficient implicit
>loops over mul
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:26:12PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> No, I think if you want "10_000" to be 1, you can always
> eval it, but I don't think anyone reading in text should expect
> that.
I'll agree as long as we make the string "1e2foo" evaluate to 1 in a
numeric context rather than
On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 22:42, Damian Conway wrote:
> Brent asked:
>
>> If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
>> low-precedence version of this?
>
> I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
>
> He likes the idea, but is having trouble
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 10:28:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think that's
> > something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
> > parse
| > As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think
that's
| > something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
| > parser hacks. Up to Larry whether it goes in the base language, but I
think
| > I'd prefer not.
|
| Speaking of string turning into numbers
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think that's
> something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
> parser hacks. Up to Larry whether it goes in the base language, but I think
> I'd
At 01:27 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
>David Nicol wrote:
>
> > RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> >
> > > > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > > > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > > > to!
> >
> > Also 123. I think that co
> # proposed
> foreach $index (keys @array) {
> do_something($index, @array[$index]);
> }
That's too much like PHP, and people would start thinking arrays and
hashes are the same type (associative arrays with autoquoted keys).
I think it's a good idea anyway.
-Hao
The section of Apocalypse 2 'Other Decisions About Variables' states:
"$#foo is gone. If you want the final subscript of an array, and [-1] isn't
good enough, use @foo.end instead."
Here is an example where -1 is not good enough:
# this perl 5 code...
foreach $index (0..$#array) {
do_somethi
David Nicol wrote:
> RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
> > Or maybe NaN evaluates to 'NaN' in string context and
> > +$x eq 'NaN' (or +$x eq NaN) could be used? NaN==NaN being false is in
> > fact very intuitive for me, as NaN is something without any numerical
> > meaning, so numerically compared to anyt
David Nicol wrote:
> RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
>
> > > First this thread tells me that "123foo" will be 123 in numeric
> > > context. Now I find myself wondering what "123indigo" evaluates
> > > to!
>
> Also 123. I think that complex numbers, if happening automatically,
> would only match
>
>
Given:
> $a = 1;
> @b = (1, 2, 3);
Damian suggested that:
> $a = $a ^+ @b
>
> becomes:
>
> $a = ($a, $a, $a) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
> $a = (1, 1, 1) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
> $a = (2, 3, 4)
> $a = 4;
Whereas Piers thought that:
> $a = $a ^+ @b
>
> becomes:
>
> $
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Colin exemplifies:
>
>> $a = 1;
>> @a = (1);
>> @b = (1, 2, 3);
>> @c = (4, 5, 6);
>>
>> $a = $a ^+ @b;
>> @a = @a ^+ @b;
>>
>> print $a; # 7
>
> No. It will (probably) print: 4. Because:
>
> $a = $a ^
27 matches
Mail list logo
