It was the dawning of the second age of parrotkind, ten weeks after
the great GC war. The Parrot Project was a dream given form. Its goal:
To prevent language wars by creating an interpreter where perl and other
languages could reside peacefully... It can be a dangerous place, but
it's our last
> Now, I love that the for loop can do both of these things, but the subtlety
> of the difference in syntax is likely, IMO, to lead to very difficult-
> to-find bugs. It's very easy to miss that I've used a comma when I meant to
> use a semicolon, and vice versa. And what's the mnemonic again?
We
In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
It's important to note that writing:
for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...}
# in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as
$y
is not the same as writing:
for @a, @b -> $x, $y {...}
# sequentially iterate @a then @b, two-at-a-time as
Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On _THE SELFISH GENE_ Dawkins says he coined the term, which was a more
> euphonic version of "mimeme":
On quickly scanning that message I read the last word as "mini-me", which
brought up some *very* unlikely associations! :-)
Damian
--
"So, Mr. Evil..."
"It's Dr. E
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:57, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suspect it would involve:
> >
> > 1. Copying the key (which might be a reference) on insertion.
> > 2. Hashing once, and caching the hash.
> >
> > This means a minimum of overhead, so it's a good th
David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/16/02 11:57 AM, "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
>> Personally I'd like the default hash to return some immutable, unique
>> and probably opaque object id (something the like
>> 'Foo=HASH(0x81e2a3c)' you get from unoverloaded objects i
Piers Cawley writes:
: Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > Hang on, now I'm a little confused - I thought that hashes were supposed
: > to keep their % sigil. So shouldn't that be %foo.keys or %foo.{keys}?
: > But then that would then violate the uniform access principle because
: > hash
On 4/16/02 12:27 PM, "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> You guys are thinking in terms of a single $obj.hash method. I think
> there will be more than one hashish (er...) method available, and each
> hash will be able to choose at least whether it wants to hash by $obj._
> (the default)
Piers Cawley writes:
: Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:00, Mike Lambert wrote:
: >> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
: >> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
: >>
: >> $b = "aa";
: >> $a{$b} = 1;
:
Buddha Buck writes:
: It's weirder when you allow multiple guard conditions to be true with no
: guarantee of evaluation order. But I see no reason to disallow it.
Well, Perl would guarantee the order. I can see situations where it'd
be better to force a random pick to avoid starvation proble
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:00:33PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
RFC266 talks about these issues, though it was just really my take on
the problem at the time. http://de
Piers Cawley writes:
: Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
:
: So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
: computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
: syntax)
:
: while {
: when $a < $b { $b -= $a }
: when $b
On 4/16/02 11:57 AM, "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Personally I'd like the default hash to return some immutable, unique
> and probably opaque object id (something the like
> 'Foo=HASH(0x81e2a3c)' you get from unoverloaded objects in Perl5, but
> probably not identical). This isn'
At 05:51 PM 04-16-2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
>
>So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
>computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
>syntax)
>
> while {
> when $a < $b { $b
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:00, Mike Lambert wrote:
>> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
>> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
>>
>> $b = "aa";
>> $a{$b} = 1;
>> chop $b;
>> print $a{"aa"};
>>
>>
On 4/16/02 11:00 AM, "Mike Lambert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
>
> $b = "aa";
> $a{$b} = 1;
> chop $b;
> print $a{"aa"};
>
> still works.
>
> If we start storing
Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
syntax)
while {
when $a < $b { $b -= $a }
when $b < $a { $a -= $b }
}
The idea is that
Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:24:13PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>> So the main reason that objects can function as hashes is so that the
>> user can poke an object into an interface expecting a hash and have it
>> "make sense", to the extent that the object i
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 14:00, Mike Lambert wrote:
> Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
> into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
>
> $b = "aa";
> $a{$b} = 1;
> chop $b;
> print $a{"aa"};
>
> still works.
>
> If we start storing full thingies in
Speaking of which, how do we ensure the immutability of keys being put
into the hash? I think Perl copied the string, so that:
$b = "aa";
$a{$b} = 1;
chop $b;
print $a{"aa"};
still works.
If we start storing full thingies into the keys of a hash, we either need
to make deep copies of these, or
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pike predates Dawkins, who I believe made up the term.
> (Could be wrong about that.) They are similar concepts, however, in
> that a tagmeme is a psychological linguistic construct that propagates
> culturally.
On Tue, 2002-04-16 at 12:21, Larry Wall wrote:
> Aaron Sherman writes:
> : This allows me to specify separate hashing and stringification methods,
> : but retains Perl's original default of combining the two.
>
> Yes, that's what we intend to do.
You can make a man feel so small ;-)
Thanks
Miko O'Sullivan writes:
: > > "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse"
: >
: > Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
: > like it! :)
:
: You got it!
:
: I hope this isn't too off topic, but... is the word "tagmeme" somehow
: related to the urban lege
Aaron Sherman writes:
: In this example:
:
: %hash = ($a=>$b);
:
: $a can be anything. In fact, since Perl6 promises to retain the original
: value of $a, we're rather encouraged to store complex data there. But,
: this poses a problem. The key to use for hashing might not ideally be
: the
In this example:
%hash = ($a=>$b);
$a can be anything. In fact, since Perl6 promises to retain the original
value of $a, we're rather encouraged to store complex data there. But,
this poses a problem. The key to use for hashing might not ideally be
the string representation.
For example
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:24:13PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> So the main reason that objects can function as hashes is so that the
> user can poke an object into an interface expecting a hash and have it
> "make sense", to the extent that the object is willing to be viewed like
> that.
AKA the
> > "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse"
>
> Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
> like it! :)
You got it!
I hope this isn't too off topic, but... is the word "tagmeme" somehow
related to the urban legend concept of a cultural "meme"?
-Miko
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:29:21AM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse"
Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
like it! :)
Allison
On Sun, 2002-04-14 at 16:41, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 05:07:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
> > my $self = invocant;
> >
> > or some such mummery. But that seems a bit retro.
>
> But now we have endless possibilities for
> $self.ish
> $self.less
> $self
> Yay, tagmemics! :) Shall I offer an "Intro to Linguistics for Perl 6
> Developers" class? That would be fun!
Please!!!
-Miko "Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse" O'Sullivan
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 11:03:15PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 4/15/02 10:24 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> > The main point of doing this isn't really the migration from Perl 5,
> > but a basic underlying philosophy of linguistics known as tagmemics.
> ("tagmemics"? ;)
Yay, tagmemics! :) Shall
31 matches
Mail list logo
