(It seems you're confused about my position because I was sloppy
presenting it. My apologies; hopefully this will clear a few things
up.)
On 10/10/05, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's no
Stuart Cook wrote:
>On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>What about whitespace?
>>
>> foo (a => 42); # Note space
>>
>>Is that the first case (subcall with named arg) or the second case (sub
>>with positional pair)?
>>
>>
>
>Sub with positional pair, since the paren
> "SC" == Stuart Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's not clear
SC> whether you're splatting a pair, or a hash, or an array, or a complete
SC> argument-list object. This is probably fine for quick-'n'-dirty code,
SC> but I'd lik
On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about whitespace?
>
> foo (a => 42); # Note space
>
> Is that the first case (subcall with named arg) or the second case (sub
> with positional pair)?
Sub with positional pair, since the parens aren't call-parens (because
of the spac
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>while fixing bugs for the imminent Pugs 6.2.10 release, we ran into
>several issues with magical pairs (pairs which unexpectedly participate
>in named binding) again. Based on Luke's "Demagicalizing pairs" thread
>[1], #perl6 refined the exact semantics [2].
>
>The
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that perl6 (by
default) shouldn't refuse to run programs because of a (perceived or
real) type error. It should, of course, emit a compile-type type
*warning*, which can be silenced or made fatal at the user's
discretion.
There are a few reasons b
The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's not clear
whether you're splatting a pair, or a hash, or an array, or a complete
argument-list object. This is probably fine for quick-'n'-dirty code,
but I'd like to encourage a more explicit style:
my %hash = (a=>'b', c=>'d');
foo( *%
> "LP" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LP> On 10/9/05, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "IB" == Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IB> sub foo ($a) {...}
>>
>> works for me. but what about lists and arrays?
>>
>> my @z = ( 'a', 1 ) ;
>> fo
On 10/9/05, Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "IB" == Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IB> sub foo ($a) {...}
>
> works for me. but what about lists and arrays?
>
> my @z = ( 'a', 1 ) ;
> foo( @z ) # $a = [ 'a', 1 ] ??
Yep.
> my @z
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 20:22:59 +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
> Opinions?
Yes!
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: *shu*rik*en*sh*u*rik*en*s*hur*i*ke*n*: neeyah
pgpPtAVtx26AP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
Uri Guttman wrote:
>> "IB" == Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IB> * "(key => $value)" (with the parens) is always a positionally
> passed
> IB> Pair object. "key => $value" (without the parens) is a named
> IB> parameter:
>
> IB> sub foo ($a) {...}
>
>
> "IB" == Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
IB> * "(key => $value)" (with the parens) is always a positionally passed
IB> Pair object. "key => $value" (without the parens) is a named
IB> parameter:
IB> sub foo ($a) {...}
IB> * Unary "*" makes a normal pair va
Hi,
while fixing bugs for the imminent Pugs 6.2.10 release, we ran into
several issues with magical pairs (pairs which unexpectedly participate
in named binding) again. Based on Luke's "Demagicalizing pairs" thread
[1], #perl6 refined the exact semantics [2].
The proposed changes are:
* "(key =>
13 matches
Mail list logo
