Luke Palmer wrote:
> Of course, this was introduced for a reason:
>
> sub min($x,$y) {
> $x <= $y ?? $x !! $y
> }
> sub min2($x, $y) {
> if $x <= $y { return $x }
> if $x > $y { return $y }
> }
>
> In the presence of junctions, these two functions are not equ
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:58:38PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: I think there might be a discrepency between S3 and S4.
You are correct--S4 was out of date. Thanks.
Larry
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
But junctions are so "special", that this abstraction wouldn't work.
Well my point is that I dought that it is tractible for the compiler
to come up with the dwimmery to pull the invocation of .values on the
return value out of toomany and leave the cardinality check
HaloO,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
I'm confused at the confusion. To me, junctions are just magical
values, not magical scalars. In theory, one should be able to create
junctions of arrays, hashes, or subs just as easily.
my @junc = any( @a, @b, @c );
my %junc = any( %a, %b, %c );
Hmm, and this
On 1/4/06, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
> > argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
> > function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
> > ...
> > [1] T
On 1/2/06, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
> > argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
> > function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
> > ...
> > [
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Instead of
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:<~>(Str $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, Str $s2) {...}
as S13 say
multi sub infix:<+> (Us $us, Them $them) is c
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Instead of
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:<~>(Str $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, Str $s2) {...}
as S13 say
multi sub infix:<+> (Us $us, Them $them) is commutative {
myadd($us,$them
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Junctions are frightfully more abstract than that. They only take on
meaning when you evaluate them in boolean context. Before that, they
represent only a potential to become a boolean test.
This is very well spoken err written---except that I would use
beautifully
Instead of
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:<~>(Str $s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, Str $s2) {...}
could you say
multi sub *infix:<~>(ArabicStr $s1, ArabicStr | Str $s2) | (Str
$s1, ArabicStr $s2) {...}
or so
10 matches
Mail list logo
