On Sunday 07 July 2002 05:33 pm, Ashley Winters wrote:
> my($foo, $bar) = for { $_ = new Stuff }
Err, the parser would die if I did that, never mind. Can I have each, perhaps?
*@foo = each { undef }
I shouldn't be programming on Sunday,
Ashley Winters
On Sunday 07 July 2002 04:10 pm, Ashley Winters wrote:
>
> given my Doberman $sis is female = .dog[0] but pregnant -> $mother {
> for my Doberman @puppies = new Doberman x $mother.littersize
In hindsight, I probably meant
for my Doberman @puppies = ^new Doberman x $mother.littersize
It's
Ashley Winters wrote:
> > $_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
>
> Hmm, I thought the for topic was made ro at some point. Odd.
Not the standard $_ topic. Only named topics default to read-only.
> However, I still expect to be able to use my() in a loop condition/iterator
> and have it
> will perl6 still support the indirect object syntax? i thought it was
> going away and that would be:
>
> Doberman.new
That works too, but the indirect object syntax isn't going away.
TMTOWTDI, after all.
> also is $_ an lvalue alias (topic) for $spot and $rover?
Yep. Only *named* t
On Sunday 07 July 2002 03:05 pm, Damian Conway wrote:
> Ashley Winters wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > $_ = new Doberman for my Dog ($spot, $rover) is rw;
>
> I don't think so.
>
> In Perl 6 you'd just need:
>
> $_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
Hmm, I thought the for topic was made ro at
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/07/1646247
Standard slashdottish stuff--my favorite comment so far is the one
wondering why Larry isn't contributing to Python development instead
of redoing perl.
--
Dan
-
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Ashley Winters wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> $_ = new Doberman for my Dog ($spot, $rover) is rw;
DC> I don't think so.
DC> In Perl 6 you'd just need:
DC> $_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
will perl6 still support th
Ashley Winters wrote:
> How about:
>
> $_ = new Doberman for my Dog ($spot, $rover) is rw;
I don't think so.
In Perl 6 you'd just need:
$_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
Or, if you really did want that strong type-checking:
for $spot, $rover -> Dog $dog is rw { $dog = ne
On Sunday 07 July 2002 02:19 pm, Damian Conway wrote:
> Ashley Winters asked:
> > > It *might* possibly work to hyper the constructor:
> > >
> > > my ($a, $b) = ^new Foo
> >
> > Would prefix ^ always return 'wanted' number of repetitions? Like a
> > smart C?
>
> This does bother me about the a
Ashley Winters asked:
> > It *might* possibly work to hyper the constructor:
> >
> > my ($a, $b) = ^new Foo
>
> Would prefix ^ always return 'wanted' number of repetitions? Like a
> smart C?
This does bother me about the above proposed syntax/semantics. Hyperoperations
take their "magnitud
At 11:03 AM -0600 7/7/02, Thom Boyer wrote:
>And thanks for the pointers. I've been out of touch with the Perl
>community the last couple of years. It's been exciting seeing how
>Perl 6 is shaping up, but I'm having a hard time making up lost
>time. The postings to perl6-language often take for
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Bill Atkins wrote:
> 1. Perl6 should include a "has" and "have" keyword to set properties
> more clearly:
Already been over this. Answer was no for some reason.
> my $var has Found;
See, then you need a direct object. I is it that C<$var has found>? :)
(sortof) Seriously
1. Perl6 should include a "has" and "have" keyword to set properties
more clearly:
my $var has Found;
as opposed to:
my $var is Found
Similarly:
my @list have Found
I guess "have" sounds weird (all you base are belong to us ;) ) and may
not be necessary.
2. Perl6 definitely should inclu
13 matches
Mail list logo
