On 20/09/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The basic idea is that, alongside Functor, you have a Zippable theory
> which defines:
>
> theory Zippable[::T] {
> multi zip (T[::A], T[::B] --> T[:(::A, ::B)]) {...}
> }
>
> Where that last coloney madness is a yet-to-be-prop
On Sep 12, 2005, at 3:56 PM, Nathan Gray wrote:
Yep, someone needs to make a diagram about Roles, too.
Here yah go.
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/
p6_role_model.jpg
I am planning on making Roles self-bootstrapping, so the class(Role)
will actually be the
Some other possible problems:
1: if $condition is an expression with side-effects then your new construct has
a different meaning then the original code.
2: if the middle part does something that changes the value of the expression
$condition then the new construct again has a different meanin
On 19/09/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This solution lacks the elegance of the lazy loading approach, but
> has the best responsiveness. These implementations tend to be overly
> complex for what they do, and hence not worth the maintenance costs.
>
> The gain is that the user only
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:58:41PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-09-20 20:33 (+0300):
> > Today on #perl6 I complained about the fact that this is always
> > inelegant:
> > if ($condition) { pre }
> > unconditional midsection;
> > if ($condition) { post }
>
> I believ
Mark Reed skribis 2005-09-20 14:31 (-0400):
> Not necessarily. Consider this common idiom (in pseudo-perl5):
Common, but widely regarded as bad style. The solution is templating and
factoring in templates.
But disregarding that,
The trick is to not see it as "pre; midsection; post;" versus
"mid
Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-09-20 20:33 (+0300):
> Today on #perl6 I complained about the fact that this is always
> inelegant:
> if ($condition) { pre }
> unconditional midsection;
> if ($condition) { post }
I believe it's not inelegant enough to do something about.
The unconditi
TSa skribis 2005-09-20 19:06 (+0200):
> Please help me to understand how the context starts to exist.
What do you mean?
Do you want to know what things provide list context?
- hash assignment
- array assignment
- arrayref constructor []
- hashref constructor {}
- slurpy parameters
- list assignm
TSa wrote:
IIRC, $Larry has mentioned a Pipe type which to me seems to be
just the generic type where you configure the buffer/queue size.
In multi-threaded (or connected processes) applications the buffer
size needs tuning to balance responsiveness with throughput. Thus
your gather proposal cou
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 14:31:07 -0400, Mark Reed wrote:
> On 2005-09-20 14:23, "Yuval Kogman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 18:19:42 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> 2: if the middle part does something that changes the value of the
> >> expression $condition the
On 2005-09-20 14:23, "Yuval Kogman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 18:19:42 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 2: if the middle part does something that changes the value of the
>> expression $condition then the new construct again has a different meaning.
>
> Err, that'
Yuval~
On 9/20/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today on #perl6 I complained about the fact that this is always
> inelegant:
>
> if ($condition) { pre }
>
> unconditional midsection;
>
> if ($condition) { post }
>
> I asked for some ideas and together with
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 18:19:42 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some other possible problems:
>
> 1: if $condition is an expression with side-effects then your new construct
> has a different meaning then the original code.
If it has side effects then I always
my $bool = test ... ;
if
Today on #perl6 I complained about the fact that this is always
inelegant:
if ($condition) { pre }
unconditional midsection;
if ($condition) { post }
Either you put the condition in a boolean var and check it twice, or
you use a higher order function and give it three bl
HaloO Juerd,
you wrote:
Does the type "List" exist? What is it? How does it fit in the
hierarchy?
I've put it below Sub in my type lattice. But that is not official,
of course.
In list context, comma provides list context to LHS and RHS, and those
lists together are flattened. (It's not exa
HaloO chromatic,
you wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:01 +0200, TSa wrote:
Why shouldn't there be a lvalue traversal that
in the end makes
($x, $y) = \($a, $b);
actually mean
$x = \$a; $y = \$b;
Does this not go from one sequence point (evaluate the rhs sufficiently,
then perform the
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The whole point was to deautomatize it! However, here's an
interesting solution: pairs are scanned for *syntactically* *on the
top level* of a function call (allowing named() or however we spell it
as a fallback when we want to be dynamic). However, :foo(bar) and foo
17 matches
Mail list logo
