TSa skribis 2005-09-22 14:55 (+0200):
> Why not simply:
> loopbody:
Because I don't like non-block labels. It reminds me too much of
bad-goto.
This, and I fear this would have bad performance. That's based on
nothing, though.
> And I hope we all agree, that goto behind the scenes is
> not
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
No, the role installs homogenious targets into the generic
binary-MMD comparator which I think is called eqv.
Err, why? We already have that with regular MMD semantics.
role Num {
multi &*infix: ($x:, Num $y) { $x == $y }
}
What you mean is double dispatc
Yuval~
On 9/22/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:20:42 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> > Ingo Blechschmidt asked:
> >
> > >my $pair = (a => 42);
> > >say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
> >
> > Not yet specified but I believe it should be "42" (i
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:20:42 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt asked:
>
> >my $pair = (a => 42);
> >say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
>
> Not yet specified but I believe it should be "42" (i.e. stringifies to value).
>
> Note that S02 does specify that pairs *i
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 13:53:20 +0200, TSa wrote:
> HaloO Yuval,
>
> you wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
> >> role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
> >> role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
> >> role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
> >What is the implication of from the
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:23:06 -0400, David Storrs wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:08 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
> >>the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about
HaloO,
Juerd wrote:
Both recently discussed situations with blocks can be solved by
introducing a way to leave the current block and resume it elsewhere.
With first class code types, &_ and &label beeing bound lexically
to the current instance of the sub class, the set of current control
flow
HaloO,
Carl Mäsak wrote:
But what if I don't care about the elements 1,4,7? Would the following
be a sane syntax?
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> undef, $x, $y { say $x }
I think that, if the concept of lazy list evaluation is running
deep in Perl 6 than the obvious solution to me is:
for @a -> $x
Damian Conway skribis 2005-09-22 8:20 (+1000):
> Note that S02 does specify that pairs *interpolate* to
> key-tab-val-newline, so you can still get "a\t42\n" by writing "$pair"
> instead.
I think separating stringification and interpolation leads to
unpredictability, and is a very bad thing.
Ju
Both recently discussed situations with blocks can be solved by
introducing a way to leave the current block and resume it elsewhere.
I'll demonstrate it assuming there is a pause/cont combination. For
these examples to work, pause needs to take effect after the entire
statement it's in is evaluat
On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:08 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about using _ instead
of undef. :)
Joked? Every other language that has pat
On 22/09/05, Shane Calimlim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about something like:
>
> if ($condition) {
> pre;
> always { # maybe "uncond" instead of always, or both -- "always" could
> # mean 'ignore all conditions' and "uncond" could mean
> # 'ignore the current block's condition
> mid_section;
Ingo Blechschmidt asked:
my $pair = (a => 42);
say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
Not yet specified but I believe it should be "42" (i.e. stringifies to value).
Note that S02 does specify that pairs *interpolate* to key-tab-val-newline,
so you can still get "a\t42\n" by writin
Excuse my noobness, I really have no idea about any of the inner workings,
but am just concerned with a more elegant syntax of doing it.
How about something like:
if ($condition) {
pre;
always { # maybe "uncond" instead of always, or both -- "always" could
# mean 'ignore all conditions' and "unco
Eric wrote:
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify...
You wouldn't??! I certainly would.
Object references already stringify/numerify/boolify in Perl 5. Unfortunately,
they do so with problematic default behaviours, which is why C
allows you to overload q{""}, q{0+} and
Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
>> Cheers,
>> Joshua Gatcomb
>> a.k.a. Limbic~Region
>
>
> Oops... I hadn't noticed that you ARE L~R...
>
In the tradition of i18n, etc., I had assumed that L~R was shorthand for
Luke Palmer. You may want to keep up the old tradi
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region
Oops... I hadn't noticed that you ARE L~R...
Michele
--
Your ideas about Cantorian set theory being awful suffer from the
serious defect of having no mathematical content.
- Torkel Franzen in sci.math, "
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I have mocked up an example of how you could do this in p5 with some ugly
looking code:
You may be interested to know that this has had an echo at
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=493826
mostly misunderstood in the replies, IMHO. Basically
Stuart Cook skribis 2005-09-22 10:39 (+1000):
> If there's no (single) obvious interpretation of "turn a value into a
> number" for a particular type, then don't struggle to come up with a
> non-obvious one--I say just leave it undefined, or have it fail(), or
> whatever.
Leaving it undefined is w
Mark A. Biggar skribis 2005-09-21 17:44 (-0700):
> Now for a related question: is it intended that ~$x and +$n be the same
> as $x.as(Str) and $x.as(Num)? How locked in stone would this be, I.e.,
> ~ and + are macros that give the .as() form?
If I read everything correctly, this is the case.
On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
> the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about using _ instead
> of undef. :)
Joked? Every other language that has pattern matching signatures that
I know of (that is,
21 matches
Mail list logo
