On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 01:21:50PM -0700, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
> > Over on Perlmonks someone was asking about Perl 6's ability to have named
> > argument passing. He also asked about the Jensen Machine and Ruby iterators.
> > Now, just being o
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 01:21:50PM -0700, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
> Over on Perlmonks someone was asking about Perl 6's ability to have named
> argument passing. He also asked about the Jensen Machine and Ruby iterators.
> Now, just being on this list has taught me so much, but, I'm not quite
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:59:57PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> The parens in #3, C<< <( code )> >>, make sense if you think of
s/3/2/
Allison
At 4:19 PM -0400 7/2/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:56:46AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Sean O'Rourke [...] presented "a larger [grammar] that appears to
>> capture much more of the syntax found in Apocalypses and Exegeses
>> 1 - 4 (5 just scares me)."
>O
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 02:52:06PM -0500, Me wrote:
> Current p6 rx syntax aiui regarding embedded code:
>
> /
> #1 do (may include an explicit fail):
> { code }
>
> #2 do with implicit 'or fail'
> <( code )>
>
> #3 interp lit:
> $( { code } )
>
> #4 interp as r
At 1:07 PM -0700 7/2/02, Larry Wall wrote:
>Are you sure Ruby isn't just using dynamic variables? My information may
>be old, but that's all it seemed like to me. A certain amount of confusion
>naturally arises in the Ruby world because of the absence of explicit
>declaration, so the name bindin
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 09:56:46AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sean O'Rourke [...] presented "a larger [grammar] that appears to
> capture much more of the syntax found in Apocalypses and Exegeses
> 1 - 4 (5 just scares me)."
On that subject, am I correct that there is no Exegesi
Are you sure Ruby isn't just using dynamic variables? My information may
be old, but that's all it seemed like to me. A certain amount of confusion
naturally arises in the Ruby world because of the absence of explicit
declaration, so the name binding rules get to be rather complicated.
In fact,
Doing volunteer work is so often a thankless task (and in many cases
one that gets unwarranted abuse from random passers-by) that I wanted
to take a moment to publically thank both Bryan Warnock and Piers
Cawley, for perl 6 list summaries past and present. They're the
single most visible piece
On Tuesday 02 July 2002 11:15 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:36:45AM -0700, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
> > my $a = 'foo';
> >
> > pass_by_name ( sub { print $a} );
> >
> > sub pass_by_name {
> > my $a = 'bar';
> > &@_[0];
> > }
Perhaps a pragma which does:
my
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 10:36:45AM -0700, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
> Fortunately, a little research, has clarified a good bit of my question for me. So I
>think I can reposit it more clearly. Here goes.
>
> You all know what pass by reference is, right? And pass by value? Well, Algol 60
--
On 02 Jul 2002 09:56:46 +010
pdcawley summed:
> Ruby iterators
>
>Ruby interators were the subject of Erik Steven Harrison's post, which
>also referred to 'pass by name' and 'the Jensen Machine', and wanted to
>know 'the Perl 6 stance on the matter'. Nobody has yet stepped u
Sorry, but I gotta put in a couple of comments which are basically
subjective and don't realy need discussion. So, just for consideration:
/^pat$/ /^pat\n?$/# ^ and $ mean string
/^pat$/m /^^pat$$/ # no more /m
/\A...(^pat$)*...\z/m /^..
13 matches
Mail list logo
