Luke Palmer:
# sub foo($x) {
# if ($x != 4) {
# print "Not four\n";
# }
# if ($x == 4) {
# print "Four\n";
# }
# }
# sub oof($x) {
# if ($x != 4) {
# print "Not four\n";
# }
# else {
#
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> From: Deborah Ariel Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:05:16 +1100 (EST)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Luke wrote:
> > When junctions collapse, is that reflecte
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:28:17AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >
: > : will it be an error to declare it as "our $_" ;
: >
: > No, in this case, $_ is still considered a lexical, but it just happens
: > to be aliased to a variable in the current package.
: >
:
: which variable ? i
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:34:49PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
> wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
> the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
It's the difference
Larry Wall writes:
> Correct, $_ is always lexical. But...
>
> : or * will it be implicitely "my $_" -- class/package lexical
>
> There's no such thing as a "class/package lexical". I think you
> mean file-scoped lexical here.
ooo, now I understand : *scope* is orthogonal concept to cl
> "access caller's topic" is an unrestricted
> licence to commit action at a distance.
Right.
Perhaps:
o There's a property that controls what subs
can do with a lexical variable. I'll call
it Yours.
o By default, in the main package, topics are
set to Yours(rw); other lexicals are s
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
> Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to be a supercomma in these
> situations, does that mean that we C addicts can have C back to do
> the kinds of loops that we mean when we say "for loops"?
I hope not.
> I really don't much like the C keyword.
>
> for (
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>
> > $foo = 1 | 2 | 4
> > print $foo;
> > # Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
>
> Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
> want from junctions?
>
> Perhaps the above should just print JUNCT
> Supercomma!
> [snip]
> Larry then confessed that he was thinking of changing the declaration of
> parallel for loops from:
> for @a ; @b ; @c - $a ; $b ; $c {...}
> to something like:
> for parallel(@a, @b, @c) - $a, $b, $c {...}
Assuming that semicolon is no longer goi
Luke wrote:
> When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
> junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
>
> $foo = 1 | 2 | 4
> print $foo;
> # Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
> [...]
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we sti
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:34:49 +
> From: Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
> wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
> the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_
Apologies for raising the dead (horse)
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:27:51PM -0600, Me wrote:
> Damian:
> > ["it" will be passed to about 5% of subs,
> > regardless of whether the context is your
> > 10 line scripts or my large modules]
>
> If the syntax for passing "it" to a sub
> remains as verb
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
If so, what is perl going to do about the computationally expensive
entanglement thingy?
$x =
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
: Hang on, couldn't you rewrite things to not use the cache?
:
: class is $class {
: sub value { &func(*@args) }
: method operator:+ ($self is rw:) { +($self = value) }
: method operator:~ ($self is rw:) { ~($self
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:35:00PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: What you want are conversion-to-(num|str|bool) methods:
:
: sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
: class is Num {
: has Num $cache;
: sub value { $n * $n }
: method operator:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:11:32PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: so if I understand correctly ,
:
: Every topicalizer defines a topicalizer scope in which there is
: implicit declaration
:
: my $_ ;
:
: and then lexical $_ ( implicitely ) is bound to ( or assigned to )
: whatever it shoul
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:48:06PM -0600, Me wrote:
: Are placeholders only usable with anonymous
: subs, or named subs too?
Placeholders are not intended for use with named subs, since named
subs have a way of naming their parameters in a more readable fashion.
However, it may well fall out that
Piers Cawley writes:
>
> FMTWYENTK about ":="
> Bravely declining to expand the acronym in his subject, arcardi posted a
> summary of his current understanding of the behavior of ":=", the
its "far more then what you ever need to know"
and after Damian Conway answer it becomes JEOWY
Timothy S. Nelson writes:
> Hi all. I hope this hasn't been discussed before. I Googled for
> "perl6 meta-operators" and found nothing; likewise practically
> nothing searching the perl6-language archive for meta-operators.
>
> Question: are there any plans to have user-defined met
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 14:30:24 +, Peter Haworth wrote:
> So to get the same yield context, each call to the coroutine has to be from
> the same calling frame. If you want to get several values from the same
> coroutine, but from different calling contexts, can you avoid the need to
> wrap it in a
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:11:36 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> >> I still prefer "cached", which sounds less lingo-ish than "memoized"
> >> but reads better than "same" ("Same as what?").
Me writes:
> Sorta. To quote an excellent summary:
>
> "Topic is $_".
>
>
>
> > is $_ always lexical variable.
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > Or I can have $MyPackage::_ ?
>
> You can copy or alias any value.
>
so if I understand correctly ,
Every topicalizer defines a top
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021110
Far off in distant Newark a figure, muttering something about `Leon
Brocard', shambles across a railway bridge and makes its way into a
waiting room. Time passes. After a while, a train arrives and the figure
shambles on board, takes i
23 matches
Mail list logo
