Rod Adams wrote:
All I want now is for autothreading to be explicit.
It already *is*.
The only way that:
is_prime($x)
can ever autothread is if $x holds a junction. But that can now only happen if
there's an explicit C in scope where $x was assigned to (or the
explicit use of some other m
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose funky_test is a derivative of C< printf >. Only this printf let's
> you feed it a junction for the format, and it will sort through them and see
> which one matches best depending on actual number of parameters, parameter
> types, etc. Ordinarily, thi
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if $x == 3|4|5|6 {...}
would thread over infix:<==> without any funkiness, since we'll assume
operators are well written, and can take junctions as parameters, same as:
if is_prime(3|4|5|6) {...}
Would pass the j
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
2..sqrt($x)
What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junction of lists out? Or
does sqrt die because it's not expecting a junction?
What on earth does C< for (2..sqrt(3|5)) {...} > mean in
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >2..sqrt($x)
> >
> >What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junction of lists out? Or
> >does sqrt die because it's not expecting a junction?
> >
> What on earth does C< for (2..sqrt(3|5)) {...} > mean in the current
> state of j
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if $x == 3|4|5|6 {...}
>
> would thread over infix:<==> without any funkiness, since we'll assume
> operators are well written, and can take junctions as parameters, same as:
>
> if is_prime(3|4|5|6) {...}
>
> Would pass the junction to is_
Craig DeForest wrote:
Hmmm... It seems that this way does lie madness -- there's a fundamental
ambiguity between autothreading happening inside or outside the declared
loop, and there's no "least surprising" way to implement it. Certainly
inside the loop is the easiest and most natural to imple
Hmmm... It seems that this way does lie madness -- there's a fundamental
ambiguity between autothreading happening inside or outside the declared
loop, and there's no "least surprising" way to implement it. Certainly
inside the loop is the easiest and most natural to implement, but that acts
s
Ashley Winters wrote:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
Particularly focus on:
2..sqrt($x)
What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junction of lists out? Or
does sqrt die because
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:35:53 -0800, Ashley Winters
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 .. sqrt(10) -> LazyList of (1..3)
> 1 .. sqrt(10|20) -> Junction of any(1,2,3, 1,2,3,4)
>
> LazyList does Iterator, but Junction does not. You'd have to use (1 ..
> sqrt(3|6)).values to iterate through the possible v
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:12:40 +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
> >> Particularly
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:42:31PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
No, but nor does it have a concept quite like a variable.
Which significantly weakens the "mapping naturally to human linguistic
structures" argument, IMO.
Why exactly? It's just the variable-na
Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
>> Particularly focus on:
>>
>> 2..sqrt($x)
>>
>> What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junctio
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
> Particularly focus on:
>
> 2..sqrt($x)
>
> What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junction of lists out? Or
> does sqrt die because it's not
Luke Palmer wrote:
Rod Adams writes:
Junctions are intended to be used mainly within conditionals and other
statements;
If the set of these "other statements" is limited, consider creating a
Junction class (which needs a "use Junction;" to activate), which
overloads the various comparison
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:42:31PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
> >
> >No, but nor does it have a concept quite like a variable.
> >
> Which significantly weakens the "mapping naturally to human linguistic
> structures" argument, IMO.
Why exactly? It's just the variable-nature of variables that isn'
Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
class Source[Language ::To] is Str {
multi sub *coerce:as (Any $data, To ::Lang) {
return Lang.serialize($data)
}
}
What is the return type of &*coerce:as?
Sorry, I was too lazy (well, I'd claim I was thinking at a much higher level,
but i
Rod Adams writes:
> >Junctions are intended to be used mainly within conditionals and other
> >statements;
> >
> If the set of these "other statements" is limited, consider creating a
> Junction class (which needs a "use Junction;" to activate), which
> overloads the various comparison operators fo
Larry Wall wrote:
The need for junctions
first became evident when we found ourselves filling the ~~ tables
with various sorts of weird non-symmetries.
~~ can easily be called the "DWIM compare" operator. It even looks like
you're waving your hands, asking for some strange voodoo to happen. It
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
Junctions can short circuit when they feel like it, and might in some
cases do a better job of picking the evaluation order than a human.
I was afraid someone was going to say that. And I now must
HaloO Damian,
you wrote:
Actually, I'd have thought that the type coercion mechanism might be a
more appropriate way to go here. After all, the serialization of a data
structure is merely a coercion to a subtype of Str. Specifically, I
imagine a parameterized Source subtype:
class Source[Langua
On Feb 18, 2005, at 2:04 AM, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Junctions are equivalent to the English sentence "Get eggs, bacon, and
toast from the store". (In Perl, that'd be something like C<<
$store->get("eggs" & "bacon" & "toast") >>.) It's just a bit of
orthogonality that allows you to give "
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 08:26:26AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Just as a BTW, that syntax is illegal currently, since those
> curlies would be interpreted as hash subscripts.
Noted. Which reminds me I need to implement hashes... :)
> : It sort of makes sense to me. Please correct me if it's wron
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 04:25:49PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: After getting Life and Mandel to run on Pugs yesterday (see
: http://svn.perl.org/perl6/pugs/trunk/examples/ ), today I've
: made this version of Quicksort to run:
:
: use v6;
:
: multi sub quicksort ( ) { () }
:
: mult
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >Junctions can short circuit when they feel like it, and might in some
> >cases do a better job of picking the evaluation order than a human.
> >
> >
> I was afraid someone was going to say that. And I now must convert my
> reservations abo
After getting Life and Mandel to run on Pugs yesterday (see
http://svn.perl.org/perl6/pugs/trunk/examples/ ), today I've
made this version of Quicksort to run:
use v6;
multi sub quicksort ( ) { () }
multi sub quicksort ( *$x, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) {
my @pre = @xs.grep{ $_ < $x
26 matches
Mail list logo
