Alexey Trofimenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>my $var = "test";
>my @arr := $var;
> error? or maybe it would be the same weirdness, like in former example? or
> maybe it's a ["test"]?
The := operator uses the same rules as parameter passing. So, what do
you think this does?
sub foo(@
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 04:09:03 +0800, Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
...
Let's take the first one first, because it is what S06 seems to imply,
although it is against Perl5's tie() intuition:
my @carton is Scalar; # assuming this is the default
Now @carton implements the
Hi Juerd,
[Quoting Juerd, on February 5 2005, 16:57, in "CLI signature?"]
> signature (
> Rule $pattern,
> bool +$help:short('h'),
> Int +$verbose :short('v'),
> Str [EMAIL PROTECTED] = <->
> );
The actual parsing still has to happen 'somewhere else'
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-02-05 18:52 (+0100):
> signature(...) looks like a function/sub call, while it isn't one
> really.
Macros can do this to a language :)
macro signature is parsed /;/ { ... }
> Maybe it should be possible to create Signature objects without
> creating a sub
That
> "NC" == Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NC> If junctions are sets, and so a|b is identical to b|a, then isn't
NC> it wrong for any implementation of junctions to use any
NC> short-circuiting logic in its implementation, because if it did,
NC> then any active data (such as
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 06:35:55PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> If junctions are sets, and so a|b is identical to b|a, then isn't it wrong
> for any implementation of junctions to use any short-circuiting logic in
> its implementation, because if it did, then any active data (such as tied
> thing
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 02:30:21AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:39:26PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:04:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > > > #t and
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:39:26PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:04:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > > #t and (0 | 6) < 2 # reduction in boolean
> > > > context(!)
> > >
> >
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 06:56:00AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Yes, unless it returns [[1],[2],[3]] instead. (What you have written is
> context dependent.)
Yup. Thanks!
Oh, by the way, may I use the infix: operator for creating none()
junctions? I was writing pretty-printing code for junction
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 06:52:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Hmm, I believe I said somewhere that references are no longer always true
> in Perl 6. So perhaps it's not an exception after all. We're trying
> to get rid of as many useless exceptions as possible in Perl 6, after all.
Yes, the rele
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-02-05 17:19 (+0100):
>> ...this seems a bit ugly to me.
>
> The "signature" part, or the signature itself? Because you'll
> encounter lists like this all over Perl 6 code anyway...
I refered to the way the signature is specified, not the signatur
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-02-05 17:19 (+0100):
> ...this seems a bit ugly to me.
The "signature" part, or the signature itself? Because you'll encounter
lists like this all over Perl 6 code anyway...
> What do you say about that:
> use Getopt::Auto;
> run &main;
> sub main (
>Rule $pa
Matthew Walton skribis 2005-02-05 16:20 (+):
> Would this actually be any better than the interface provided by
> Getopt::Long?
I'm not sure if it's *better*. I personally find it easier to read and
much easier to remember.
It would reduce the number of mini languages needed. Passing argumen
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> This probably goes against everything a shell based platform wants,
> but would it be possible to give the program a sub-like signature?
I like that idea very much, but...
> signature (
> Rule $pattern,
> bool +$help:short('h'),
> Int +$verbos
Juerd wrote:
This probably goes against everything a shell based platform wants, but
would it be possible to give the program a sub-like signature?
I ask this after another painful session of forgetting how things
work, reading Getopt::Long's documentation.
signature (
Rule $pattern,
This probably goes against everything a shell based platform wants, but
would it be possible to give the program a sub-like signature?
I ask this after another painful session of forgetting how things
work, reading Getopt::Long's documentation.
signature (
Rule $pattern,
bool
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 04:30:58PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: So it turns out that A03 says that semicolons within "brackets" defaults
: to a list-of-list builder. Curiously, it is missing from S03, and the
: behaviour is not documented in detail.
That's because it's still a bit hand-wavey.
:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:08:32PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 04:44:41AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: > * What is the value of a reference in any of the scalar contexts?
: >
: > Currently I'm blindly dereferencing it.
:
: It seems that I got four out of five correc
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:04:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > #t and (0 | 6) < 2 # reduction in boolean context(!)
> >
> > Why is it allowed to do this?
>
> Because "and" forces boolean context to determ
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:43:10PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 12:38:57PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Surely you can do better than that for counterintuitive? :-)
> >
> > 4 < (0 | 6) < 2
>
> pugs> ? 4 < (0 | 6) < 2
> (#t|#f)
>
> Why is it so? Because:
>
>
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > #t and (0 | 6) < 2 # reduction in boolean context(!)
>
> Why is it allowed to do this?
Because "and" forces boolean context to determine whether it
short-circuits or not. However, I should've make it clear t
(Again, this is really a language question. Sorry for the hopefully
digestible use of internal symbols.)
Pugs currently has two numeric types:
VInt - Arbitary sized integer
VNum - Double-precision point number with NaN and Inf support.
Division is done like this:
pugs> ? 1 / 3
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 12:38:57PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Surely you can do better than that for counterintuitive? :-)
>
> 4 < (0 | 6) < 2
pugs> ? 4 < (0 | 6) < 2
(#t|#f)
Why is it so? Because:
4 < (0 | 6) and (0 | 6) < 2
(4 < 0 | 4 < 6) and (0 | 6) < 2 # local
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:33:25PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> With the note that "b" must be evaluated at most once. However, if
> taken literally, it gives this rather weird result:
>
> pugs> ? 2 < (0 | 3) < 4
> (#t|#t)
Surely you can do better than that for counterintuitive? :-)
4
(I've just finished the pretty printing part in Pugs, so I'll use actual
command line transcripts below. The leading "?" does not denote boolean
context -- it's just telling pugs to do a big-step evaluation. Also,
boolean literals are written in their Scheme forms.)
In S06, the meaning of chaini
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:08:32PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> Here's another quick question: In S03 zip() is used like this:
>
> for zip(@names, @codes) -> $name, $zip { ... }
>
> But in S04 it becomes:
>
> for zip(@a;@b) -> $a, $b { ... }
>
> Why semicolon? Is it a special form?
26 matches
Mail list logo
