Juerd wrote:
> Scott Bronson skribis 2004-07-01 14:11 (-0700):
> > Juerd wrote:
> > > > > pray_to $_ ., then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
>
> I meant it without "then", but apparently forgot to remove it.
>
> pray to $_ ., sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
Strictly from a grammatica
Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A guess from my current understanding:
You're wanting to play with a database. You take a continuation. You
see
if have a database handle open and good to go, if so you do your
thing.
(can you then dismiss the continuation? do uni
Scott Bronson skribis 2004-07-01 14:11 (-0700):
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 13:35, Juerd wrote:
> > > > pray_to $_ ., then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
I meant it without "then", but apparently forgot to remove it.
pray to $_ ., sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
> Ha! I love it. Good
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 13:35, Juerd wrote:
> > > pray_to $_ ., then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
> > Sure. But what is .,? C could work alone, couldn't it?
>
> It is a horizontal ;.
Ha! I love it. Good source code should look happy.
Scott Bronson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 18:41, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Larry didn't go for it. Note, we already have an operator that puts
> > its left side in void context and evaluates it before its right one:
> > we call it C<;>.
>
> But C<;> requires a surrounding do block, as you noted.
Scott Bronson skribis 2004-07-01 13:31 (-0700):
> > Then invent a horizontal ; operator that does not :)
> > >pray_to $_ then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods
> > pray_to $_ ., then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
> Sure. But what is .,? C could work alone, couldn't it?
It is a horizon
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 12:45, Juerd wrote:
> Scott Bronson skribis 2004-07-01 12:42 (-0700):
> > But C<;> requires a surrounding do block, as you noted.
>
> Then invent a horizontal ; operator that does not :)
C? That's the topic of discussion...
> >pray_to $_ then sacrifice <$virgin> for
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Juerd wrote:
> Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-06-30 20:51 (-0400):
> > my $string = "Hello, World!";
> > say $string[0..4]; # prints "Hello\n"
> > $string[7...] = "Larry!";
> > say $string; # prints "Hello, Larry!\n"
>
> And that "array" is one of bytes? graphemes?
>
> In gene
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:41:24 -0600, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
instead?
new C<,>,( as I've been told here by wise ones), doesn't guarantee order
in which its operands will be evaluated, and e
Scott Bronson skribis 2004-07-01 12:42 (-0700):
> But C<;> requires a surrounding do block, as you noted.
Then invent a horizontal ; operator that does not :)
>pray_to $_ then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods
pray_to $_ ., then sacrifice <$virgin> for @evil_gods;
Juerd
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 18:41, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Larry didn't go for it. Note, we already have an operator that puts its
> left side in void context and evaluates it before its right one: we call
> it C<;>.
But C<;> requires a surrounding do block, as you noted. I'm
disappointed that Larry didn
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 7:31 pm
Subject: Re: undo()?
>
> Oh no! Someone doesn't understand continuations! How could this
> happen?! :-)
>
> You need two things to bring the state of the process back to an
> earlierstate:
On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 21:33, chromatic wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 18:18, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
>
> > P.P.S. do we have a way to imply void context on function inside
> > expression, something like C, C<+>, C<~>, C do?
>
> Sort of a 'meh' operator?
>
> I wonder (idly) in which circumstan
--- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A guess from my current understanding:
>
> You're wanting to play with a database. You take a continuation. You
> see
> if have a database handle open and good to go, if so you do your
> thing.
> (can you then dismiss the continuation? do uninvoked cont
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Well, at least that's a nice simple explanation. Why couldn't anyone
have explained it to me that way before? Unfortunately, it means that
continuations are a lot less useful than I thought they were. :<
Actually, I think you're underestimatin
Juerd wrote:
Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-06-30 20:51 (-0400):
my $string = "Hello, World!";
say $string[0..4]; # prints "Hello\n"
$string[7...] = "Larry!";
say $string; # prints "Hello, Larry!\n"
And that "array" is one of bytes? graphemes?
I'm not really up on my unicode, but I think .chars is wh
Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-06-30 20:51 (-0400):
> my $string = "Hello, World!";
> say $string[0..4]; # prints "Hello\n"
> $string[7...] = "Larry!";
> say $string; # prints "Hello, Larry!\n"
And that "array" is one of bytes? graphemes?
In general, I like the idea. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, almo
David Storrs wrote:
Well, at least that's a nice simple explanation. Why couldn't anyone
have explained it to me that way before? Unfortunately, it means that
continuations are a lot less useful than I thought they were. :<
Actually, I think you're underestimating the little guys. After all, if
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> If we have $foo.undo(), then we will want a multi-step undo to go with
> it, probably $foo.undo($n), with $n able to be negative for redo. Are
Definitely! I didn't add that to the point that it wuld have been obvious,
and I wanted to keep
The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Congratulations Ion, don't forget to send in a patch to the CREDITS
> file.
$ grep -1 Ion CREDITS
N: Ion Alexandru Morega
D: string.pmc
Thanks again for your summary,
leo
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Issues:
: * Limits lvalue substr (doesn't allow it to be a different size)
: unless splice is used (or a substr method is also provided).
That all has to be looked at anyway. What does "5" mean when
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 05:31:29PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Oh no! Someone doesn't understand continuations! How could this
> happen?! :-)
>
> You need two things to bring the state of the process back to an earlier
> state: undo and continuations. People say continuations are like time
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
