Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Piers Cawley
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote: >>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote: >>> Austin Hastings wrote: >>> > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide > s

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote: Austin Hastings wrote: > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide > some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks. Isn't this one of the

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Piers Cawley
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote: > >> Austin Hastings wrote: > >> > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide >> > some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks. >> >> >> Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote: > Austin Hastings wrote: > > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide > > some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks. > > > Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it allows > for Tail Recursion Optimizati

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Mark A. Biggar
Austin Hastings wrote: -Original Message- From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM To: Jeff Clites Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Block Returns Jeff Clites writes: Speaking to the practical side, I have written code

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Adam D. Lopresto
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote: > Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure someone will make it > mean something. :) I've been saying for some time now that .= should mean exactly what one would expect it to mean, method call and assign the result, for code like $str .= lc

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Dan Sugalski
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: > > eval($block) if defined $block; > > I prefer $block.compile.run to eval() They're not quite equivalent -- I think eval's still wrapping a try/catch around the call.

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Luke Palmer
Simon Cozens writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: > > Frankly, I think I'd rather see: > > Some nits: > > > macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ * }/) { > > Probably just >macro atexit($code) is parsed(//) { > > > $block .= $code; > $block _= $code; $block

Re: The Block Returns

2003-10-03 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: > Frankly, I think I'd rather see: Some nits: > macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ * }/) { Probably just macro atexit($code) is parsed(//) { > $block .= $code; $block _= $code; Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure som