On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 08:39:52AM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: How do I open a file named "-"?
Um, depending on what you mean, and whether we continue to support
the '=' pseudofile, maybe:
$fh = io("-");
or
$fh = open "-";
or
$fh = $name eq '-' ?? $*IN :: open $name;
: How do I op
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 5/4/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[<] could mean "monotonically increasing".
Not unless we make boolean operators magic. There are arguments for
doing that, but I don't really want to think about how that would be
done at the moment. Reduce over a straight-up (or
On 5/4/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To get the other behavior, you have to say one of:
>
> given "hello" {
> when /hello/ {
> say "One";
> when /hello/ { say "Two"; continue; }
> when /hello/ { say "Three"; continue; }
> co
On May 4, 2005, at 22:31 , Larry Wall wrote:
given "hello" {
when /hello/ {
say "One";
if /hello/ { say "Two"; }
if /hello/ { say "Three"; }
continue;
}
say "Four";
}
Is there no more
say "Two" if /hello/;
?
Regards,
On 5/4/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [<] could mean "monotonically increasing".
Not unless we make boolean operators magic. There are arguments for
doing that, but I don't really want to think about how that would be
done at the moment. Reduce over a straight-up (or left) boolean
o
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:00:31PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: What should the output of this be:
:
: given "hello" {
: when /hello/ {
: say "One";
: when /hello/ { say "Two"; }
: when /hello/ { say "Three"; }
: continue;
: }
:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:55:31PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
:$sum = reduce(+) @array; # macro
That one suffers the operator/term confusion I mentioned earlier.
:$sum = reduce &infix:<+> @array; # regular sub
That one's complicated enough that you actually installed a synta
How do I open a file named "-"? How do I open stdout (and the other
standard handles)?
--
Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://gaal.livejournal.com/
What should the output of this be:
given "hello" {
when /hello/ {
say "One";
when /hello/ { say "Two"; }
when /hello/ { say "Three"; }
continue;
}
say "Four";
}
I think:
One
Two
Three
Four
But pugs t
On May 4, 2005 06:22 pm, Rod Adams wrote:
> John Macdonald wrote:
>
> >On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If there are good uses for coroutines that given/take does not address,
> >>I'll gladly change my opinion. But I'd like to see some examples.
> >>FWIW, I
$sum = reduce(+) @array; # macro
$sum = reduce &infix:<+> @array; # regular sub
$sum = [+] @array; # meta operator
($sum = 0) >>+=<< @array;# hyper tricks
use My::Cool::Reduce::Mixin; # unless in core
$sum = @array.reduce(+);
John Macdonald wrote:
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
If there are good uses for coroutines that given/take does not address,
I'll gladly change my opinion. But I'd like to see some examples.
FWIW, I believe that Patrick's example of the PGE returning matches
could b
John Macdonald wrote a lovely summary of coroutines [omitted]. Then added:
> I'd use "resume" instead of "coreturn"
We've generally said we'd be using "yield".
> and the interface for resume would allow values to be sent
> in as well as out.
Indeed. As John suggested, the "yield" keyword (or whatev
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:02:41PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> John Macdonald wrote:
>
> >The most common (and what people sometimes believe the
> >*only* usage) is as a generator - a coroutime which creates a
> >sequence of values as its "chunk" and always returns control
> >to its caller. (This r
[Not back, just sufficiently irritated...]
Luke Palmer wrote:
in my proposal, when you call a coroutine, it returns an iterator (and
doesn't call anything):
my $example = example();
=$example; # 1
=$example; # 2
The thing this buys over the traditional (which I refer to as the
"stupid
John Macdonald wrote:
The most common (and what people sometimes believe the
*only* usage) is as a generator - a coroutime which creates a
sequence of values as its "chunk" and always returns control
to its caller. (This retains part of the subordinate aspect
of a subroutine. While it has the abi
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 09:53:59PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 05:32:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : # Type Instantiation?
: > : sub apply (&fun<::a> returns ::b, ::a $arg) returns ::b {
: > : &fun($arg);
: > : }
: >
: > The first parameter would be &fun
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:22:43PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started after a
> > > previous return, so I would expect
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Squint harder ;-)
I'm trying!
If we agree that the first say should print 7, then we must conclude
that either we've changed the value of undef to 7, or we've created a
circular reference.
In my view of refs 7 is printed, indeed. But I've difficulty to understand
what you mean
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:47, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> >
> > > So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
> > > possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coro
> Are there any particular other operators you're worried about?
> I think the current design does a pretty good job of factoring out the
> metaoperators so that the actual set of underlying basic operators *is*
> relatively small. Yes, you can now say something like
>
> $x = [»+^=«] @foo;
>
> "J" == Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
J> Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:20 (-0400):
>> $h.print() goes to $h.out
>> $h.readline() goes to $h.in
>> $h.warn() goes to $h.err
>> Making the tri-directional trifecta complete.
J> It's sort-of consistent, but I don't like it, bec
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:58:22AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: I just started following the list again after a few months (though I
: have been skimming the bi-weekly summaries) and I'm a little alarmed
: at what seems to be a trend towards operaterizing everything in sight
: and putting those opera
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:30, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
> Autrijus Tang wrote:
> > What should this do, if not infinite loop?
> >
> > my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
>
> Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
> Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
> a ref to ref of u
Thomas Sandlaß skribis 2005-05-04 17:30 (+0200):
> >my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
> Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
> Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
> a ref to ref of undef. I see no circle.
No, again, please do not make the mistake of thinking VAL
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:55:57AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I don't think there's a perfect solution for what you want, but this is
: pretty darned close.
Yes, and I was always a little fond of the bracket solution since it
lets you visually distinguish
$x = [»+«] @foo;
$x = [+]« @f
Autrijus Tang wrote:
If the reference semantics changed drastically, please
reflect it prominiently in the relevant Synopsis. :)
Unfortunately I don't feel entitled to do so. I'm
just an interessted bystander, not a member of the
design team.
Sorry.
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:30:48PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaï wrote:
> Autrijus Tang wrote:
> >What should this do, if not infinite loop?
> >
> >my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
>
> Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
> Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
> a ref t
Autrijus Tang wrote:
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Hmm, after the my both $x and $y store an undef.
Then $x stores a ref to undef. Then $y stores
a ref to ref of undef. I see no circle.
Now let's look at $x = 1. I think it goes down
to th
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:20 (-0400):
> $h.print() goes to $h.out
> $h.readline() goes to $h.in
> $h.warn() goes to $h.err
> Making the tri-directional trifecta complete.
It's sort-of consistent, but I don't like it, because warnings are much
more complicated than just things that are print
> Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:02 (-0400):
> > Would that mean that a filehandle opened readonly would throw an
> > exception if you attempted to either print or warn on it?
>
> I don't know what warning on a filehandle should be or do, but ignoring
> that bit, yes, an exception would be the r
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 18:15 (+0300):
> Yes, if $h is the not-very-primitive version of IO. Surely the type of
> $h.in is not the same as $h itself?
Why not? $h does IO::Handle::Tridirectional, and $h.in does not, even though
$h and $h.in are-a IO::Handle.
Or whatever the classes will be,
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-04 11:02 (-0400):
> Would that mean that a filehandle opened readonly would throw an
> exception if you attempted to either print or warn on it?
I don't know what warning on a filehandle should be or do, but ignoring
that bit, yes, an exception would be the right thing t
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:59:21PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> > Ah yes, that's another thing I was wondering about: what does opening a
> > pipe return. If it's a one-way pipe, okay, this may be a single handle;
> > but for bidirectional opens, we need $in, $out, and $err handles; and
>
> That'd be tri
Would that mean that a filehandle opened readonly would throw an
exception if you attempted to either print or warn on it?
On 5/4/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 17:24 (+0300):
> > Ah yes, that's another thing I was wondering about: what does opening a
> > pipe
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 17:24 (+0300):
> Ah yes, that's another thing I was wondering about: what does opening a
> pipe return. If it's a one-way pipe, okay, this may be a single handle;
> but for bidirectional opens, we need $in, $out, and $err handles; and
That'd be tridirectional, then.
I just started following the list again after a few months (though I
have been skimming the bi-weekly summaries) and I'm a little alarmed
at what seems to be a trend towards operaterizing everything in sight
and putting those operators in the core.
My understanding of P6 after the reading the AES
Hi,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
> What about the function compose() that would live in the module
> "keyword", imported by the incantation "use keyword qw( compose );"?
FWIW, I like "o" better -- function composing is very often used in FP,
and should therefore have a short name.
Luckily, it's very easy t
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:07, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:47, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
> > So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
> > possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines?
>
> A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started
On 5/4/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok - this isn't what I was expecting at all. That doesn't make it a
> > bad thing. Given something that looks a lot more like a typical
> > coroutine:
> >
> > sub example is coroutine {
>
Hi,
Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> On 5/4/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
>> > possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines? I ask
>> > because after reading
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:47:17AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I would expect "open" to be a bit of an anachronism in P6, but still
> used fairly often. For the most part, I would expect that:
>
> my IO $read_fh = '/some/path' => 'r'; # Get an IO::File (is IO)
> my IO $write_fh = '/o
On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok - this isn't what I was expecting at all. That doesn't make it a
> bad thing. Given something that looks a lot more like a typical
> coroutine:
>
> sub example is coroutine {
> yield 1;
> yield 2;
> yield 3;
> }
>
> I would exp
What about the function compose() that would live in the module
"keyword", imported by the incantation "use keyword qw( compose );"?
(NB: My P6-fu sucks right now)
multimethod compose (@*List) {
return {
$_() for @List;
};
}
On 5/4/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I
> What I refer to now is something that takes two {coderefs,anonymous
> subs,closures} and returns (an object that behaves like) another anonymous
> sub, precisely the one that acts like the former followed by the latter
> (or vice versa!).
Do you mean like the mathematical 'f o g'?
i.e. (f o g)(
On 5/4/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/4/05, Joshua Gatcomb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
> > possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines? I ask
> > because after reading Dan's "What the heck is: a corou
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:47, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> So without asking for S17 in its entirety to be written, is it
> possible to get a synopsis of how p6 will do coroutines?
A coroutine is just a functional unit that can be re-started after a
previous return, so I would expect that in Perl, a co
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:45, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : Hmmm...
> :
> : $sum = [+] @array
> :
> : Nice.
>
> I just thought that'd be visually confusing in a subscript:
>
> @foo[0..9; [;[EMAIL PROTECTED]; 0..9]
Now, why did I
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:23, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "J" == Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> J> Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
> >> @foo ==> zip <== @bar
>
> J> H...
>
> J>@quux
> J> ||
> J> ||
> J> \/
> J>
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:38:58PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:24:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > Yes, it doesn't immediately deref as an array, so it fails.
:
: Oh. So autodereference is only one level? I got it all wrong
: in Pugs, then. I wonder where I got tha
All,
I am not the only one who has found porting p5 to working p6 code
relatively easy and similar looking:
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=453821
In that thread, the author raised the question of coroutine support in
Perl. I looked up coroutines in the "Perl6 Timeline By Apocalypse"
threa
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:06, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:00:46AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: > : That said, let me try to be helpful, and not just complain:
: > :
: > : $sum = (+) @array;
:
: > It's certainl
I had implicitly touched on this in the past, but speaking of binops - and
of functional features in Perl6, is there any provision of a (list
associative?) composition binop?
I had naively thought about ==> and/or <==, but that's somewhat on a
different level.
What I refer to now is something
Uri Guttman skribis 2005-05-04 9:23 (-0400):
> you are brainfucking me! stop it now!!
+++[>++<-]>+++.<[>><<-]>>.
<<[><-]>-.---.<+++[>+++<-]>.<+
++[>--<-]>+.>.<<+++[>+++<-]>.+.>.<<+++[>--<-]>
.-.+..>.<<[>+<-]>++.<+++[>
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 06:24:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Yes, it doesn't immediately deref as an array, so it fails.
Oh. So autodereference is only one level? I got it all wrong
in Pugs, then. I wonder where I got that impression...
> Now @$x would infinite loop according to what I said a
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:34:28AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Oh hey, I just made up "list:..." There's nothing for that listed in
: A12, and that handy table from A12 doesn't show up in S12 or S13... is
: that an oversight? Have new categories been added?
List ops are probably just prefix: wit
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:15:09PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 6:10 (-0700):
: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: > : This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
: > : keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 09:06, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:00:46AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : That said, let me try to be helpful, and not just complain:
> :
> : $sum = (+) @array;
> It's certainly one of the ones I considered, along with all the other
> brackets, and |+
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:18:46AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: LW> $fact = \\* 1..$num;
:
: shouldn't that be s/fact/prod/ ? sure the input makes it a factorial but
: the general case would be a product. not that what var names you choos
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-04 21:13 (+0800):
: > What should this do, if not infinite loop?
: > my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
:
: I'm still against any explict scalar dereferencing, so: fail,
: complaining about $x not b
> "J" == Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
J> Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
>> @foo ==> zip <== @bar
J> H...
J>@quux
J> ||
J> ||
J> \/
J> @foo ==> zip <== @bar
J> /\
J> ||
Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 15:18 (+0200):
> I'm still against any explict scalar dereferencing, so: fail,
> complaining about $x not being an arrayreference (not knowing how
> to handle &postcircumfix:<[ ]>).
Ehm :)
s/explicit/implicit/
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
LW> any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
LW> I am currently thinking that the metaoperator is a prefix spelled \\
LW> (though there ar
Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-04 21:13 (+0800):
> What should this do, if not infinite loop?
> my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
I'm still against any explict scalar dereferencing, so: fail,
complaining about $x not being an arrayreference (not knowing how
to handle &postcircumfix:<[
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:58:14PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
: > @foo ==> zip <== @bar
:
: H...
:
:@quux
: ||
: ||
: \/
: @foo ==> zip <== @bar
: /\
: ||
:
Using that argument, every keyword is really an operator/macro.
Instead of sub/method/multimethod, we could use a special character.
sub foo { ... }
becomes
&&& foo { ... }
A method is >&&, a multimethod is *&&, and so on. (I don't have a
Unicode mail client or I'd look for a Unicode character.
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 6:10 (-0700):
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> : This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
> : keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
> Because it's an operator/macro in any event, wit
What should this do, if not infinite loop?
my ($x, $y); $x = \$y; $y = \$x; $x[0] = 1;
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgplOdMgUykiv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> "AS" == Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AS> On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 22:51, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
LW> multi sub opensocket (
LW> Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW> Str +$encoding = 'auto',
LW> Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
I second that. By all means! (But I thin it would be desirable to have a
'plain' reduce operator as well)
Michele
--
The re
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:59:04AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
: keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
Because it's an operator/macro in any event, with weird unary or
listop parsing:
reduce(+) @arr
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-05-04 9:00 (-0400):
> > $sum = ®+ @array;
> I don't think you can do that workably. In the font I use, I was
> scratching my head asking "how does @ work there?!" Yep, I can't tell ®
> and @ apart without getting REAL close to the screen.
Perhaps this just means tha
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:00:46AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: That said, let me try to be helpful, and not just complain:
:
: $sum = (+) @array;
:
: I've not thought through all of the implications to the parser, but I
: think this works, and it certainly ends up looking very mnemonic fo
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 02:53:54PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Hm, if ==> and <== are made special syntax, maybe this would be
: possible?
:
: @foo ==> zip <== @bar
It's already the case that <== binds tighter, so it should work the
same as
@foo ==> (zip <== @bar)
or
zip <== @bar <== @fo
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 08:36, Larry Wall wrote:
> I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
> any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
Sounds very cool! I like it... but...
> $sum = ®+ @array;
I don't think you can do that workably. In the
This may be a naive question, but what's wrong with just having a
keyword called reduce()? Why do we need an operator for everything?
I'm worried that the list of P6 operators is going to be as long as
the list of P5 keywords, with a lot of them looking something like:
I propose that if you're t
Juerd skribis 2005-05-04 14:53 (+0200):
> @foo ==> zip <== @bar
H...
@quux
||
||
\/
@foo ==> zip <== @bar
/\
||
||
@xyzzy
:)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 08:47:17AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I would expect "open" to be a bit of an anachronism in P6, but still
: used fairly often. For the most part, I would expect that:
:
: my IO $read_fh = '/some/path' => 'r'; # Get an IO::File (is IO)
: my IO $write_fh = '/o
Are these equivalent? (Assuming reduce isn't going away)
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-04 5:36 (-0700):
> $sum = \\+ @array;
> $fact = \\* 1..$num;
$sum = reduce &infix:<+>, @arrayd;
$fact = reduce &infix:<*>, 1..$num;
> $firsttrue = \\|| @args;
> $firstdef = \\// @args;
>
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 16:13, Mark Reed wrote:
> On 2005-05-02 15:52, "Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-02 22:25 (+0300):
> >> > open 'ls', '|-'; # or even
> >> > open 'ls', :pipe => 'from'
> >
> > I dislike the hard-to-tell-apart symbols '<'
On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 22:51, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LW> multi sub opensocket (
> LW> Str +$mode = 'rw',
> LW> Str +$encoding = 'auto',
> LW> Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO;
>
> a
I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
I am currently thinking that the metaoperator is a prefix spelled \\
(though there are certainly lots of other possibilities that I've laid
awake all night thinkin
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-04 13:48 (+0300):
> * canonical representations (eg, :w in your example should probably set
> $write)
Or, possibly, $w := $write.
> * mutually exclusive options (for open modes, :write should exclude
> :append)
I don't really care if this goes in the signature. Run
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 09:52:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> I already suggested a syntax like '+$write|w' for having multiple
> ways to say the same thing. I don't like an explicit :mode. Let
> Perl figure that out based on passed named arguments.
I'd like to see this specced. What you're suggesting
Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
When you dispatch, what happens would depend upon WALKMETH (according to
the pseudocode for CALLONE in A12). Usually the first inherited method
would get called.
Ohh, yes, that thing. I forget about it. And actually I hope that
there's a version among the standard pragmas t
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-04-26 through 2005-05-03
^^
^^
Wow!
Michele
--
Why should I read the fucking manual? I know how to fuck!
In fact the problem is that the fucking manual only gives you
theoretica
86 matches
Mail list logo
