Re: Who is @Larry?

2005-08-25 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:25:30PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: > I have a simple question. Who comprises @Larry? I am fairly sure > that I know a few people in it, but I am highly doubtful that I know > all of them. dev.perl.org has a "Who's Who" list: http://dev.perl.org/perl6/people.html T

Re: Who is @Larry?

2005-08-25 Thread Uri Guttman
> "MF" == Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: MF> All~ MF> I have a simple question. Who comprises @Larry? I am fairly sure MF> that I know a few people in it, but I am highly doubtful that I know MF> all of them. if $you_have_to_ask ~~ @Larry { say 'you are not in @Larr

Who is @Larry?

2005-08-25 Thread Matt Fowles
All~ I have a simple question. Who comprises @Larry? I am fairly sure that I know a few people in it, but I am highly doubtful that I know all of them. Thanks, Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread Luke Palmer
On 8/25/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:16:56 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) > wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:03 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > perl6 creates a new instance of the perl compiler (presu

Binding of array elements

2005-08-25 Thread Ingo Blechschmidt
Hi, with PIL-Run (Perl 6 to Perl 5 compiler) progressing rapidly, the topic "binding" came up on #perl6. "Binding is a simple symbol table manipulation, right?" "No, consider @array[$idx] := $var or more generally $sub(@args) := $var." Then we wondered what should happen to array elements

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread Ingo Blechschmidt
Hi, Yuval Kogman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:42:28 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote: >> This section will contain all information needed: >> * User-defined operators >> * Other symbols exported by "is export" >> * Exported macros > > Okay, this raises a distinction: > > Compile time export

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 15:42:28 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote: > This section will contain all information needed: > * User-defined operators > * Other symbols exported by "is export" > * Exported macros Okay, this raises a distinction: Compile time exports Runtime exports Modu

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread Ingo Blechschmidt
Hi, Yuval Kogman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:16:56 -, David Formosa (aka ? the > Platypus) wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:03 +0300, Yuval Kogman >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > perl6 creates a new instance of the perl compiler (presumably an >> > object). The compiler will only

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread David Storrs
On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:16 AM, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:03 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] perl6 creates a new instance of the perl compiler (presumably an object). The compiler will only compile the actual file 'foo.pl', and d

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:16:56 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:03 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [...] > > > perl6 creates a new instance of the perl compiler (presumably an > > object). The compiler will only compile the actual

Re: Perl 6 code - a possible compile, link, run cycle

2005-08-25 Thread David Formosa \(aka ? the Platypus\)
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:03 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > perl6 creates a new instance of the perl compiler (presumably an > object). The compiler will only compile the actual file 'foo.pl', > and disregard any 'require', 'use', or 'eval' statements. use has the potenti

Re: Demagicalizing pairs

2005-08-25 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 20:23:55 +1000, Stuart Cook wrote: > Here's a suggestion: > Within argument lists, both of them are special syntactic forms for > named arguments: > > foo(a => 'b', :c); # both named args > my $pair = :a; > foo($pair); # not a named-arg call > ...or else find new

Re: Demagicalizing pairs

2005-08-25 Thread Stuart Cook
Here's a suggestion: Outside of argument lists, both a=>'b' and :a('b') (and friends) are equivalent, and denote an ordinary pair value. Within argument lists, both of them are special syntactic forms for named arguments: foo(a => 'b', :c); # both named args If you want to pass pair values i

Re: Demagicalizing pairs

2005-08-25 Thread Luke Palmer
On 8/24/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Larry wrote: > > > Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of > > positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end > > but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together > > in one z