Fwd from Luke -- he's adopted a retarded MUA.
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:22:05 -0600
> From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Perl 6's for() signature
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > And you can't do that because the loop has no way of k
Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030810
Another week, another summary. How predictable is that?
In keeping with the predictability, we'll start with the internals list.
Set vs. Assign
"T.O.G of Spookware" has an issue with the way IMCC treats "=";
sometimes an "=" means "set
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:52:42PM +0100, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
> Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
> I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
> a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Its scheduled to occur
- Original Message -
From: "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:42 AM
Subject: This Week's Summary
Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030810
Another week, another summary. How predict
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it's possible to have two routines with the same name which
> differ by signature... however, in Perl 6, C has only one
> signature, and it's the one above. The C loop you are thinking
> of is spelled C,
Oh, yes, forgot about that.
> To the cont
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
> The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
> Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
> tutorial... but who knows). But that means I must write something which
> will work :-)
Just a hin
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:19, Iain Truskett wrote:
> * Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Aug 2003 00:16]:
>
> [...]
> > Besides you could always provide online updates to your book as the
> > language changes. The first (dead tree) edition would be the rough
> > cut, and later editions wo
Based on current experience, I'd say about three years after the start
of development for perl7.
=Austin
--- Alberto Manuel Brandão_Simões <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for
> Perl6,
> I mean, they are subject to change. Is there
* Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Aug 2003 00:16]:
[...]
> Besides you could always provide online updates to your book as the
> language changes. The first (dead tree) edition would be the rough
> cut, and later editions would be closer to reality as the language
> stablizes.
Much li
Sorry to drag out an old conversation, but I was indisposed at the
time, and only just got back to it.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:07:21PM +0200, Edwin Steiner wrote:
: Edwin Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > Disallowing interpolated formats on \F has the additional advantage of
: > making
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:19:28AM +1000, Iain Truskett wrote:
> * Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Aug 2003 00:16]:
>
> [...]
> > Besides you could always provide online updates to your book as the
> > language changes. The first (dead tree) edition would be the rough
> > cut, and late
> Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
> I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
> a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Since the A/E gig is where the design team is getting a handle on what it
is they want to be doing an
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:49, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
> > The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
> > Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
> > tutorial... but who knows). But that means
John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
> Perl 6 code...
A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a while loop. In general,
where foo, bar, baz, and quux
Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030703
"Ooh look, it's another Perl 6 summary. Doesn't that man ever take a
holiday?"
"I think he took one last month."
"Is it in Esperanto this week?"
"I don't think so."
"Does Leon Brocard get a mention?"
"It certainly looks th
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:00:54PM +0100, Alberto Manuel Brand?o Sim?es wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:49, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
> > > The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
> > > Larry). I am thinking on a
> Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
> >
> > John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> > > EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
> > > Perl 6 code...
> >
> > A for loop[1] is basically syntax
david nicol wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] perl -le '$_{a}=27; package notmain; print $_{a}'
> 27
>
> Gosh!
>
> Let's document it! Would it go in perlvar or perlsyn?
It's already documented, in perlvar/"Technical Note on the Syntax of Variable Names"
(at the end)
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Actually, in Perl 6, they'll do that anyway. Scope in loops is
> > > strictly defined by the location of the braces WRT the location of
Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
>
> John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> > EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
> > Perl 6 code...
>
> A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a whi
On 2003-08-05 at 16:10:46, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 1:02 PM -0700 8/5/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
> >Can I discriminate on parameter names using multi subs?
>
> Nope. Named parameters don't participate in MMD.
1. I'm thinking MMD should be called something else when being applied
to multisubs rather
* Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões [15 Aug 2003 00:36]:
> On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:19, Iain Truskett wrote:
[...]
> > Much like "Perl 6 Essentials" then?
> >
> > I must say that its chapter 4 is the clearest look at
> > the perl 6 syntax (as it was at the time of writing)
> > that I've seen yet.
> Ye
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 07:00 AM, Alberto Manuel Brandão
Simões wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:49, Simon Cozens wrote:
Just a hint: don't try writing it and revising it as the language
changes.
I wrote a Perl 6 chapter for a book in December and it is now almost
unusable
due to the pac
On 14 Aug 2003, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
> I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
> a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Sometime after perl 5's syntax and feat
The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
tutorial... but who knows). But that means I must write something which
will work :-)
Of course to write it will take many time, which can give Larry time to
writ
Hi
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Thanks,
Alberto
26 matches
Mail list logo
