Damian Conway wrote:
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
There's nothing particularly wrong with it -- just as ther's nothing
particularly wrong with any number of other "we don't need thi
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
Damian
Shouldn't that be:
for [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
As
Damian Conway wrote:
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
Damian
Shouldn't that be:
for [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
As I remember it zip hrows
On 9/30/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
>
> for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
> ...
> }
>
> ???
Thanks. I missed that one.
However, I think your point is pretty much the sam
Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
...
}
???
Damian
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 17:09:23 +0200, TSa wrote:
> And it is the type system that guaranties the availability
> of the required information e.g. in $!.
$! is polymorphic.
Since CATCH is a topcializer, and you use when blocks to case over
$!, you can check to see if it has the metadata you want
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 18:02:46 +0200, TSa wrote:
> I knew that the statement would emotionalize. Sorry to all who don't
> like it an this list. But somehow I found it describes the impression
> on the handling side somewhat. And I thought it illustrates that exceptions
> shouldn't be considered j
Austin~
On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles wrote:
>
> >Austin~
> >
> >On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Plus it's hard to talk about backwards. If you say
> >>
> >>for @l -> ?$prev, $curr, ?$next {...}
> >>
> >>what happens when yo
HaloO Piers,
you wrote:
TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
So that would be all exceptions then. They all get implemented somewhere, even
the ones that get thrown by builtins.
I knew that the statement would emotionalize. Sorry to all who
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 11:21:20PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
[ discussion on undefs elided ]
Since we can annotate our undefs now, perhaps undefs that would be
generated because there are no previous or next elements get "tagged"
as such. Something like:
# assuming $b and $a are "before"
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 10:19:29PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: In Perl 6, the match object $/ will instead be used. It's a bit harder
: to use with s///, because it will look ugly, but remember that you can
: always choose to use s^^^ or s[][] or any other of the many
: possibilities instead.
It's alway
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
The try/catch mechanism is not like the haskell way, since it is
purposefully ad-hoc. It serves to fix a case by case basis of out
of bounds values. Haskell forbids out of bound values, but in most
programming languages we have them to make things simpler for the
maint
TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
So that would be all exceptions then. They all get implemented somewhere, even
the ones that get thrown by builtins.
CATCH Exception { say "Why do you hate freedom?" }
--
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
h
Juerd:
> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
>> s/($search)/*\1*/go
>
> \1 in Perl 5 is bad style and emits a warning
The point was to give \1 and \&, in the replace part, a very limited
scope.
Maybe even better to limit \1 to the first '(?: ... )' in the search
part.
s/(?:$search)(?:.\1)+/\1/go
xy.xy.xy.x
14 matches
Mail list logo
