arefarray reference
boolboolean
const constant
elemelement
err error
fh filehandle
funcfunction
hrefhash reference
int integer
interp interpreter
i iterator?
kv key/value
num
> No, S03 is probably just wrong there. Junctions are scalar values, and
> don't flatten in list context. Maybe we need something like:
>
> for =all(@foo) {...}
>
> to iterate the junction.
for all(1,2,3).values { say $_; }
reads nicely and works in pugs.
Also, flattening may get mess
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 10:29:20PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:02:16PM +1000, Brad Bowman wrote:
: : Hi,
: :
: : I'm trying to understand the following section in S03:
: :
: : S03/"Junctive operators"
: :
: : Junctions are specifically unordered. So if you say
: :
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:02:16PM +1000, Brad Bowman wrote:
: Hi,
:
: I'm trying to understand the following section in S03:
:
: S03/"Junctive operators"
:
: Junctions are specifically unordered. So if you say
: for all(@foo) {...}
: it indicates to the compiler that there is no coup
Hi,
I'm trying to understand the following section in S03:
S03/"Junctive operators"
Junctions are specifically unordered. So if you say
for all(@foo) {...}
it indicates to the compiler that there is no coupling between loop
iterations and they can be run in any order or even in para
On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 03:37:23AM +, Nigel Sandever wrote:
: On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:47:42 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Autrijus Tang) wrote:
: >
: > Oh well. At least the same code can be salvaged to make iThreads
:
: Please. No iThreads behaviour in Perl 6.
:
: Nobody uses them and whilst s
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:47:42 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Autrijus Tang) wrote:
>
> Oh well. At least the same code can be salvaged to make iThreads
Please. No iThreads behaviour in Perl 6.
Nobody uses them and whilst stable, the implementation is broken in so many way.
But worse, the underlying
Larry Wall wrote:
I suppose bare ^
is also available:
given open 'mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]' {
^say(...);
^close or fail;
}
That almost makes sense, given that $^a is like $_. It also points vaguely
upward toward some antecedent. I could maybe get used to that, if I
tried real
Juerd writes:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-04-23 19:42 (+0200):
> > BTW, is it possible to implement the Proxy class in pure Perl? (I don't
> > think so.)
>
> It would have to be possible, because Perl 6 will be written in Perl 6.
>
> (I like that Perl 6 will be written in Perl 6, because as
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 10:07:05PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-04-24 3:58 (+0800):
: > Please sanity-check the following:
: > pugs> my ($x, @a); $x := @a[-1]; $x = 3; @a
: > *** Error: Modification of non-creatable array value attempted
:
: Pass. (For reference: The e
Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-04-24 3:58 (+0800):
> Please sanity-check the following:
> pugs> my ($x, @a); $x := @a[-1]; $x = 3; @a
> *** Error: Modification of non-creatable array value attempted
Pass. (For reference: The error is in the second statement.)
> pugs> my ($x, @a); $x := @
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 09:50:26PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-04-24 3:47 (+0800):
> > $x := @a[0];# vivified or not?
>
> Vivified, because you're taking a reference (not at language level) and
> you can't have a reference (at internal level) pointing to something
> t
Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-04-24 3:47 (+0800):
> $x := @a[0]; # vivified or not?
Vivified, because you're taking a reference (not at language level) and
you can't have a reference (at internal level) pointing to something
that doesn't exist. At language level, you can, but only symbolica
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 10:21:56AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : Now, those two semantics directly clash when the RHS can be
> : interpreted both ways. One good example would be array dereference:
> :
> : my ($x, @a);
> : $x := @a[-1];
> : @a = (1..100);
> : say $x;
> :
> : Under
> Personally I'd never use 3 levels or above. <..say> or <.say> is it.
> Beyond that, I would start naming the topics. Also, I would only use
> <..say> on quick and dirty code probably.
>
> But why are we so keen on finding a way to save a few characters isntead
> of just naming the topic which l
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:21:06 -0400, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt Creenan skribis 2005-04-23 14:19 (-0400):
Hm.. didn't really think of that. Though, how often would that really
happen?
Often -- this is exactly the same problem as Python has with its
significant indenting. Move code around
Matt Creenan skribis 2005-04-23 14:19 (-0400):
> Hm.. didn't really think of that. Though, how often would that really
> happen?
Often -- this is exactly the same problem as Python has with its
significant indenting. Move code around and you have to manually adjust
it to the new levels. The pr
Mark A. Biggar skribis 2005-04-23 10:55 (-0700):
> After some further thought (and a phone talk with Larry), I now think
> that all of these counted-level solutions (even my proposal of _2.foo(),
> etc.) are a bad idea.
In that case, why even have OUTER::?
I agree, though, and have always found t
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 13:55:17 -0400, Mark A. Biggar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After some further thought (and a phone talk with Larry), I now think
that all of these counted-level solutions (even my proposal of _2.foo(),
etc.) are a bad idea. They have a similar problems to constructs like
"next 5;
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-04-23 19:42 (+0200):
> BTW, is it possible to implement the Proxy class in pure Perl? (I don't
> think so.)
It would have to be possible, because Perl 6 will be written in Perl 6.
(I like that Perl 6 will be written in Perl 6, because as Perl 6 is very
fast, Perl 6
Matt wrote:
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 07:25:10 -0400, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt skribis 2005-04-22 21:55 (-0400):
What about . for each level up you want to go?
instead of 1.say, 2.say, 3.say
you use .say, ..say, ...say
(Ok, I'm just kidding.. really!)
I read your message after I suggested t
Hi,
my $x = new Proxy: FETCH => { foo() }, STORE => { bar($^new) };
$x ~~ Proxy; # true
$x = 42; # neither foo nor bar called
$x ~~ Num; # true
my $y := new Proxy: FETCH => { foo() }, STORE => { bar($^new) };
$y ~~ Proxy; # false (unless foo returns a Proxy object)
$y = 42;
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 06:51:04PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Greetings. In implementing :=, I have discovered two different
: set of semantics in explantations. I will refer them as "linking" and
: "thunking".
Congratulations--you've rediscovered "call by ref" and "call by name",
but computer
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 07:25:10 -0400, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Matt skribis 2005-04-22 21:55 (-0400):
What about . for each level up you want to go?
instead of 1.say, 2.say, 3.say
you use .say, ..say, ...say
(Ok, I'm just kidding.. really!)
I read your message after I suggested the same thing
What about . for each level up you want to go?
instead of 1.say, 2.say, 3.say
you use .say, ..say, ...say
(Ok, I'm just kidding.. really!)
I read your message after I suggested the same thing (I'm too impatient
to read all new messages before sending replies).
Why were you just kidding? I think it'
Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-04-23 18:51 (+0800):
> Now, those two semantics directly clash when the RHS can be
> interpreted both ways.
Not if methods for attributes like .chars promise to always return the
same variable, which would make even more sense if they were lvalue
methods. They can be put
Matt skribis 2005-04-22 21:55 (-0400):
> What about . for each level up you want to go?
> instead of 1.say, 2.say, 3.say
> you use .say, ..say, ...say
> (Ok, I'm just kidding.. really!)
I read your message after I suggested the same thing (I'm too impatient
to read all new messages before sending
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-22 18:31 (-0700):
> I should point out that we're still contemplating breaking .foo() so it
> no longer means $_.foo(). I wish there were more keys on my keyboard...
Which I think would be a very bad idea, so while I can (as long as no
other decision has been made), I'm
Hi,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
> my ($x, @a);
> $x := @a[0];
> @a := ($x, $x, $x);
> $x := 1;
> say @a; # (undef, undef, undef)
hm, I'd expect @a to be (1, 1, 1) (WE = when evaluated):
my ($x, @a);# $x is undef WE, @a is () WE
$x := @a[0];# $x is undef WE, @a is
Greetings. In implementing :=, I have discovered two different
set of semantics in explantations. I will refer them as "linking" and
"thunking".
The "linking" semantic is akin to hard links in filesystems.
It takes the storage location in the RHS and binds its to the
name in the LHS:
$x := $
30 matches
Mail list logo
