> Damian Conway wrote:
> >>And is the is/but distinction still around?
> >
> >Oh, yes.
>
> Could someone please reference where this decision was
> made. I do not find any information describing the distinction.
The following May 2001 post was related. Poke around the
thread it was in, especial
Damian Conway wrote:
>>And is the is/but distinction still around?
>
>Oh, yes.
Could someone please reference where this decision was made. I do not find
any information describing the distinction.
Steve
_
Join the worlds larges
--
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:26:08
Damian Conway wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>
>> Is it just me or is the 'is' property syntax a little
>> too intuitive? Seems like everywhere I turn, the
>> proposed syntax to solve a problem is to apply a
>> property.
>
>That's because most of th
reposted because my mailer is evil
--
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:31:45
Damian Conway wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>> I know that the property syntax is pseudo established,
>> but I'm beggining to become a bit jaded about all the
>> built in properties were building. What about good ol'
--
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:31:45
Damian Conway wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>> I know that the property syntax is pseudo established,
>> but I'm beggining to become a bit jaded about all the
>> built in properties were building. What about good ol'
>> aliases?
>>
>> sub hidden (s
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Mr. Nobody wrote:
> While Apocolypse 5 raises some good points about problems with the old regex
> syntax, its new syntax is actually worse than in perl 5. Most regexes, such
> as this one to match a C float
>
> /^([+-]?)(?=\d|\.\d)\d*(\.\d*)?([Ee]([+-]?\d+))?$/
>
> would act
Mr. Nobody wrote:
> /^([+-]?)(?=\d|\.\d)\d*(\.\d*)?([Ee]([+-]?\d+))?$/
>
> would actually become longer:
>
> /^(<[+-]>?)\d*(\.\d*)?(<[Ee]>(<[+-]>?\d+))?$/
Your first expression uses capturing parens, but the captures
don't bind anything useful, so you should probably compare
non-capturing versi
Erik Steven Harrison:
# But still, what counts as a runtime property, other than true or
# false, as in the delightful '0 but true'? What other kind of runtime
# labels can I slap on a value?
These occur to me:
$foo=0 but string("zero");
$bar='foobar' but num(1);
$baz=1
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Chuck Kulchar wrote:
> Also, how do these perl6 builtins in perl6 work with the current
> P6C/Builtins.pm? (also, why are some that are already defined in pure
> pasm/part of the parrot core redefined as perl6 code?)
For the moment, "they don't". Eventually, I expect there w
>> # INTERNAL q, qq, qw
>> # XXX - how do I do quote-like operators? I know I saw someone say...
>> # Need to do: qr (NEVER("qr")) and qx
>presumably the way the perl5 tokeniser does them - by parsing the string
>into a series of concatenated constants and variables, with some optionally
>fed thr
While Apocolypse 5 raises some good points about problems with the old regex
syntax, its new syntax is actually worse than in perl 5. Most regexes, such
as this one to match a C float
/^([+-]?)(?=\d|\.\d)\d*(\.\d*)?([Ee]([+-]?\d+))?$/
would actually become longer:
/^(<[+-]>?)\d*(\.\d*)?(<[Ee]>(
Apologies for trying to resuscitate this old horse, but a new idea
occurred to me.
Back in October I suggested that $a ^+= @b would act like reduce,
but in discussion
it was decided that it would act like length, by the interpretation:
$a ^+= @b
$a = $a ^+ @b
$a = ($a, $a, $a, ..
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:27:59PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> Answering to the best of my knowledge.
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> > Question #2:
> >
> > Why are we storing the hypothetical's sigil in the match object?
>
> I think it's to differentiate the differen
13 matches
Mail list logo
