Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 21:38, root wrote:
: >
: > I've always liked how VB allowed you to define "instance methods."
: > Basically a more elegant way of doing callbacks, plus allows some
: > structure within your callbacks. Will Perl6 allow this (Perl5 sortof did,
: > bu
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:40:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Back to from where this arose, however, I think LAST (and BETWEEN, if
> it will exist) should probably be PRE blocks. This is the only way it
> could be consistently possible to implement. It wouldn't make any
> sense to have it a PRE
3uke Palmer writes:
: Perhaps if it's generated with placeholders, the C<.curry> would be
: implicit. That way we can stay terse when the situation is simple. Like
: with Damian's C...C example. When I'm writing scripts, I
: don't want to type those 6 characters, but if I'm doing structured
Angel Faus writes:
: Hi,
:
: I was reading Damian's new excellent diary entry in which he explains the
: new currying syntax for Perl6.
:
: (For the lazy ones it's reachable at
: http://www.yetanother.org/damian/diary_latest.html)
:
: This new feature allows to partially fill place-holder funct
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
> ...curry example...
> But I am not sure I like the syntax. The problems I see are:
>
> - You only can curry placeholder-generated functions. So if you intend to
> make a function curryiable, you are forced to use place-holders, even if
> that's not the cle
Hi,
I was reading Damian's new excellent diary entry in which he explains the
new currying syntax for Perl6.
(For the lazy ones it's reachable at
http://www.yetanother.org/damian/diary_latest.html)
This new feature allows to partially fill place-holder functions, such as:
my &div = {$^x / $^
