Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> := is the thing that implements subroutine arguments. Ask yourself the
> same question with:
>
> sub another_routine ($rv) {
> ...
> }
> another_routine(some_routine());
>
> I'd expect $rv to be an alias to a copy of $foo's value, 42.
Really?
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:24:30PM -0400, Rick Delaney wrote:
: On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:20:44AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: > Yeah, they're lexical, just like in Perl 5.
:
: Not just like Perl 5, I hope. If it was then the above would print
: "d".
Yes, Perl 5 actually uses an autolocalizing f
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:20:44AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 5/10/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > sub foo() {
say $1;# undef?
> > "abc" ~~ /^(.)/; # $1 now "a"
> > }
> >
> > sub bar() {
> > "def" ~~ /^(.)/; # $1 now "d"
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 15:52, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
> I am wondering what the proper behavior of binding to a sub's return
> value should be
>
> sub some_routine {
> my $foo = 42;
> return $foo;
> }
> my $rv := some_routine();
>
> Should $rv be bound to $foo or to a copy of $foo? I ask be
Joshua Gatcomb skribis 2005-05-10 15:52 (-0400):
> sub some_routine {
> my $foo = 42;
> return $foo;
> }
> my $rv := some_routine();
> Should $rv be bound to $foo or to a copy of $foo? I ask because with
> state() and closures, it makes a difference since the value can
> change.
:= is the
I am wondering what the proper behavior of binding to a sub's return
value should be
sub some_routine {
my $foo = 42;
return $foo;
}
my $rv := some_routine();
Should $rv be bound to $foo or to a copy of $foo? I ask because with
state() and closures, it makes a difference since the value
Thomas Sandlaß skribis 2005-05-10 19:02 (+0200):
> Juerd wrote:
> > No, again, please do not make the mistake of thinking VALUES have
> > identity. VARIABLES (containers) do. A reference points to a container,
> > never to a value directly.
> I don't consider it a mistake.
That is a problem.
> S
Juerd wrote:
No, again, please do not make the mistake of thinking VALUES have
identity. VARIABLES (containers) do. A reference points to a container,
never to a value directly.
I don't consider it a mistake. So, you dany identity to "fat" values
like database connections or GUI objects?
This is s
Ashley, this is a great post. I have included it almost verbatim in my
p6 talk I'm giving tomorrow at our Perl Monger's meeting:
http://www.metaperl.com/talks/p6/hangman-elucidated/slide6.html
I hope you don't mind.
> On 5/5/05, Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was looking at
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5/5/05, Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was looking at a line in the hangman program:
>>
>> @letters == @solution.grep:{ $_ ne '' };
>>
>> and was told that I was looking at an adverbial block.
>
> The adverbial block is what you're g
In Pugs, the current logic for array submatches in split() is
to stringify each element, and return them separately in the
resulting list. To wit:
pugs> split /(..)*/, 1234567890
('', '12', '34', '56', '78', '90')
Is this sane?
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpoNrOaK2bLb.pgp
Description: PGP sig
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> rule mv { $lastcmd:=(mv) $:=[ ]+ $:= }
DC> rule cp { $lastcmd:=(cp) $:=[ ]+ $:= }
DC> sub lastcmd { return $lastcmd }
DC> }
DC> while shift ~~ m// {
DC> say "From: @{$}";
DC> say " To: $";
DC> }
>> since files and
Second attempt and cc'ed to other Perl lists too.
Original Message
Subject: [PROPOSAL] call syntax abstraction
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 13:58:14 +0200
Comments welcome,
leo
=head1 TITLE
Calling convention abstraction
=head1 ABSTRACT
The current Parrot calling conventions as descr
On 5/10/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sub foo() {
> "abc" ~~ /^(.)/; # $1 now "a"
> }
>
> sub bar() {
> "def" ~~ /^(.)/; # $1 now "d"
> foo();
> say $1;# Outputs "d"
> }
>
> bar();
>
> # Correct (I hope so)?
Yeah, they're
Hi,
sub foo() {
"abc" ~~ /^(.)/; # $1 now "a"
}
sub bar() {
"def" ~~ /^(.)/; # $1 now "d"
foo();
say $1;# Outputs "d"
}
bar();
# Correct (I hope so)?
--Ingo
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU | Row, row, row your bits, gently down t
On 5/10/05, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Damian Conway writes:
> > Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/[42], so too $ is a
> > shorthand for $/.
>
> Isn't $42 a shorthand for $/[41] ?
>
> I think that having 1-based digit-variables but 0-based array indexes on
> $/ is really confusing; m
Damian Conway writes:
> Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/[42], so too $ is a
> shorthand for $/.
Isn't $42 a shorthand for $/[41] ?
I think that having 1-based digit-variables but 0-based array indexes on
$/ is really confusing; mistakes of this sort seem to confirm my view.
--
Aaron Crane
DC> rule mv { $lastcmd:=(mv) $:=[ ]+
$:= }
DC> rule cp { $lastcmd:=(cp) $:=[ ]+
$:= }
DC> sub lastcmd { return $lastcmd }
DC> }
DC> while shift ~~ m// {
DC> say "From: @{$}";
DC> say " To: $";
DC> }
since files and
18 matches
Mail list logo
