Damian Conway wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
The overall impression I'm getting here is that we need some syntax
for saying:
$x = any(1..1000) such_that is_prime($x);
In standard Perl 6 that'd be:
$x = any(grep {is_prime $^x} 1..1000);
or, if you prefer your constraints postfixed:
$x = any( (1..100
Rod Adams wrote:
The overall impression I'm getting here is that we need some syntax for
saying:
$x = any(1..1000) such_that is_prime($x);
In standard Perl 6 that'd be:
$x = any(grep {is_prime $^x} 1..1000);
or, if you prefer your constraints postfixed:
$x = any( (1..1000).grep({is_prime $^x}
Patrick Michaud wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:34AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
Is the following comment correct?
my $x = any(2,3,4,5) and any(4,5,6,7); # $x now contains any(4,5)
Short answer: I don't think so.
Long answer:
Patrick is right on the money here...as usual. (Don't you just
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:59, Luke Palmer wrote:
> There's been some discussion about bringing a syntax back for that
> recently, but I haven't really been paying attention. Anyway, this is
> pretty clear:
>
> loop {
> $foo = readline;
> do { stuff :with($foo) };
> las
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:32:21PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: >>i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :)
: >>
: >>XP = extreme programming
: >>DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :)
: >>MP = ??
: >
: >
: >Modu
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Even if you fixed the =/and precedence with parens, to read
my $x = (any(2,3,4,5) and any(4,5,6,7));
then I think the result is still that $x contains any(4,5,6,7).
Funny. I thought $x would contain 'true' here, since C was a
boolean operator. But I could be very wro
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:39:54AM -0800, David Storrs wrote:
: Given that Perl 6 won't support an actual do-while loop a la C++ (and
: yes, I know that Perl5 didn't either), how would you accomplish that?
: That is, I'd like to have a loop that runs once, then checks its
: condition to see if it s
David Storrs writes:
> Given that Perl 6 won't support an actual do-while loop a la C++ (and
> yes, I know that Perl5 didn't either), how would you accomplish that?
> That is, I'd like to have a loop that runs once, then checks its
> condition to see if it should repeat and continues to repeat as l
Given that Perl 6 won't support an actual do-while loop a la C++ (and
yes, I know that Perl5 didn't either), how would you accomplish that?
That is, I'd like to have a loop that runs once, then checks its
condition to see if it should repeat and continues to repeat as long
as the condition is true.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:34AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
> Is the following comment correct?
>
> my $x = any(2,3,4,5) and any(4,5,6,7); # $x now contains any(4,5)
Short answer: I don't think so.
Long answer: I tend to get very lost when dealing with junctions, so
I can be completely wro
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Modular Programming
David
I think it's Metaprogramming. :)
The only thing that sprung to my mind was "MetaPost"...
Michele
--
No one can ever predict all of the possible error conditions, of course;
as soon as we write idiot-proof code, along comes a bet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :)
XP = extreme programming
DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :)
MP = ??
Modular Programming
David
I think it's Metaprogramming. :)
Miro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if junctions collapsed into junctions of the valid options under
some circumstances, so
my $x = any(1,2,3,4,5,6,7);
if(is_prime($x) # $x = any(2,3,5,7)
and is_even($x) # $x = any(2)
and $x > 2) # $x = any()
This is Just Wrong, IMO. How confusing is it going to be to f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes... but perhaps instead of the above transform we should just make
sure that < is transitive in the first place... so that no matter what
if a
Partial ordering relations are also transitive by definition.
Of course, you can overload '<' to be something other than orde
Sorry if you get this twice (and slightly different), but I posted it
off list by mistake.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Thomas Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:22:44 +
Subject: Re: Junctive puzzles.
To: Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What if junc
Aaron Sherman wrote:
So hold on to your socks... what about:
@x @y;
This reminds me of AWK's string concatenation behaviour:
print "this " $1 " that " $2
This was nice feature at the time, but caused problems down the track
when they wanted to add functions to the language in a subsequen
Uri Guttman wrote:
[...]
i think so but i can't read larry's mind (nor would i want to! :)
XP = extreme programming
DBC = design by contract (or even designed by conway :)
MP = ??
Modular Programming
David
John Macdonald wrote:
The basic problem is that a junction does not work well with
boolean operations, because the answer is usually "sometimes
yes and sometimes no" and until you resolve which of those is
the one you want, you have to proceed with both conditions.
Well, just patch the boolean oper
Matt Fowles wrote:
This is Just Wrong, IMO. How confusing is it going to be to find that
calling is_prime($x) modifies the value of $x despite it being a very
simple test operation which appears to have no side effects?
As far as I can see it, in the example, it's perfectly logical for
is_prime($x)
> "MD" == Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
>> roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but
>> also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties
MD> ^^ ^^^
MD> ^
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but
also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties
^^ ^^^
^^ ^^^
1. 2.
Ehmmm... sorry for the ignorance, but...
1. Fu
21 matches
Mail list logo
