- Original Message -
From: "Hanson, Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Rod Adams'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Perl 6 Language"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Perl 6's for() signature
> > Anyone but me feel the need for non-greedy
> > slurpy arrays? similar
> Anyone but me feel the need for non-greedy slurpy arrays? similar to
> non-greedy RE matches?
> Then we could do:
>
> sub for ([EMAIL PROTECTED], &block) {...}
>
> Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts
> Anyone but me feel the need for non-greedy
> slurpy arrays? similar to non-greedy RE matches?
I definately like the idea of having something like that. It probably
wouldn't be used much, but it is nice to have the option.
One thing though, can't you accomplish the same thing by slurping
everyt
At 01:29 PM 7/31/2003 -0400, Hanson, Rob wrote:
> Anyone but me feel the need for non-greedy
> slurpy arrays? similar to non-greedy RE matches?
I definately like the idea of having something like that. It probably
wouldn't be used much, but it is nice to have the option.
One thing though, can't yo
> At 10:05 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. There's a flattening
> >list context at the beginning (implying a sugary drink from 7 eleven),
> >followed by a code block. But, as we know, slurpy arrays can only
> >come at the end of positional pa
This is, I believe, an extension of the undef vs. null discussion that
went on some time back (we were discussing default values for arrays,
types, etc.)
The consensus (which I remain in disagreement with) was that undef
meant "go get your default" -- in effect, that you couldn't store undef
into
In a message dated Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Austin Hastings writes:
> assuming(labels => undef)
Okay... I think you're wrong, because this would have to be a special case
(defaults take effect only when *nothing* is passed in, not when the
argument is undefined) but, assuming you're right... if I want to
--- Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To take the E6 example of currying &part:
>
>&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
>
> One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in
> C<&part>
> originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
>
> What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default i
At 10:05 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. There's a flattening
list context at the beginning (implying a sugary drink from 7 eleven),
followed by a code block. But, as we know, slurpy arrays can only
come at the end of positional parameters.
Anyo
On Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 12:05 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. There's a flattening
list context at the beginning (implying a sugary drink from 7 eleven),
followed by a code block. But, as we know, slurpy arrays can only
come at the end of positional para
To take the E6 example of currying &part:
&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assuming
"nothing" (different from "assuming nothing"
> From an old summary:
>
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/04/p6pdigest/20030427.html?page=2
>
> > Paul Hodges took a crack at implementing for as a subroutine and came
> up with
> > something that didn't look too insane. Luke Palmer added a refinement
> allowing
> > for n at a time looping.
From an old summary:
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/04/p6pdigest/20030427.html?page=2
> Paul Hodges took a crack at implementing for as a subroutine and came
up with
> something that didn't look too insane. Luke Palmer added a refinement
allowing
> for n at a time looping. However, for reasons
13 matches
Mail list logo
