On 9/8/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>
> > Okay, fair enough. The reason that I thought it was surprising is
> > because 1 and 2 are usually orthogonal patterns.
>
> It depends what they're doing. Matched against a regex like /[12]/ they're
> not orthogonal either.
Luke wrote:
> Okay, fair enough. The reason that I thought it was surprising is
> because 1 and 2 are usually orthogonal patterns.
It depends what they're doing. Matched against a regex like /[12]/ they're
not orthogonal either.
>> > Junctions are logical travesty,
>>
>>Well, that's very emot
HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> I just proved that < is not transitive.
>
> I can do that for every boolean operator that Perl has. They no
> longer have any general properties, so you can't write code based on
> assumptions that they do. In particular, testing whether all
> elements in a list are equal g
Larry,
On Sep 7, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: >All sigils and twigils are part of the key to the symbol table, so
it's
: >now just
: >
: >Foo<$.baz>
:
: What would Foo<$.baz> return though (assuming Foo is a class)? It
: cannot return a value since it is an instance specific value
On 9/7/05, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a Real Live Perl 6 module I wrote recently. I've omitted a few
> magic portions of the code for clarity.
Thanks for real live perl 6 code. It's always nice to have real examples.
However, I'm arguing for logical stability w
On 9/7/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And this is based on lexical expansion. Which is cool. In fact, once
> upon a time I was going to propose that junctions are a purely lexical
> entity, expanded into greps and whatnot by the compiler; that you
> can't ever stick them in variable
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-06 21:24 (+0200):
> > \(@array,) is [ @array ], NOT map { \$_ } @array
> I'm not sure of the []s, remember &postcirumfix:<[ ]> creates *new*
> containers:
That was the point.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = $bar;
> (@array,)[0] = $bar;
AFAIK, these are the same th
Larry Wall skribis 2005-09-07 8:32 (-0700):
> I think that's a powerful argument even if we don't have an infix:<::>.
> Plus I hate all infix "nor" operators due to my English-speaking bias
> that requires a "neither" on the front. So let's go ahead and make
> it ??!!. (At least this week...)
I
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:27:20PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: How do I differentiate a method from a sub? Wouldn't they both have the
: & sigil?
Yes, as it currently stands, you can only tell that by introspection.
: >: class Foo;
: >: has $.baz;
: >: method bar { ... }
: >:
: >: Can I
Larry,
On Sep 7, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
: I base this off the AUTO* hooks described in
: S10. I assume too that the METH slot is only valid for Classes, and
not
: appropriate for Packages and Modules.
All those entries are based on the notion of intuiting from the first
characte
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:46:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: No special {FOO} subscripts, so the question doesn't arise. To the
: symbol table all blocks are stored as Foo<&bar>, presumably with
: extra canonicalized key info for "long" names.
Actually, we might well omit the '&' on Code objects
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 08:32:39AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> I think that's a powerful argument even if we don't have an infix:<::>.
> Plus I hate all infix "nor" operators due to my English-speaking bias
> that requires a "neither" on the front. So let's go ahead and make
> it ??!!. (At leas
We can do whatever we like with \ since it's really a *macro* that
imposes lvalue context (or at least, indirection in the abstract, if
we were ever to allow it in an outer lvalue context). In the case of
\($a,$b) it is also distributing that context over the items in the
list without copying.
Th
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:04:00PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: I assume that each symbol table entry has the following slots; SCALAR,
: ARRAY, HASH, SUB, METH.
Nope, typeglobs are dead, dead, dead, dead, and dead, not necessariy in
that order.
: I base this off the AUTO* hooks described in
:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 04:57:30PM +0200, Thomas Sandlass wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Luke wrote:
: > Okay, now why don't you tell us about this new binary :: you're proposing.
:
: Well, not a new one. Just plain old foo::bar::blahh and 'my ::blubb $x'
: with relaxed whitespace rules. The ternary ?? :: i
On 9/7/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
> > In that last case though, this is not equivalent to the above:
> >
> > given &code.arity {
> > when 2 { code(1,2) }
> > when 1 { code(1) }
> > }
> >
> > That may be a little... surprising. Still,
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 06:19:01PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 13:28:24 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: This should still work:
:
: > sub map (&code, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
: > gather {
: > my @args = @list.splice(0, &code.arity);
: > take
17 matches
Mail list logo
