Author: larry
Date: Mon May 15 22:30:10 2006
New Revision: 9260
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
missing dot-postfix falls back to corresponding prefix operator
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
=
Author: larry
Date: Mon May 15 19:49:41 2006
New Revision: 9259
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
separated logicals back out, combined all comma-ish things in one level.
but still 22 levels...
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
=
Author: larry
Date: Mon May 15 19:31:05 2006
New Revision: 9258
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Rerationalized loose operator precedence.
New loose unary precedence level tighter than comma for "not" and "true".
The two levels looser than listops are now "things that separate lists
Rob Kinyon wrote:
> I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be very feasible to do this natively in
> P5. But, would it be possible to do it natively in P6? As in,
> supported within the interpreter vs. through some sort of overloading.
Look at "is atomic" in S17draft, and Software Transaction Memory in gener
On Thursday 11 May 2006 14:54, Smylers wrote:
> What about :gappy, to indicate that there have to be gaps in the source
> text at the points where there are gaps in the pattern?
I like this better. Forming a new compound word and then abbreviating it
seems confusing -- and I'm a native English
I've been working on DBM::Deep, a way to have P5's data structures
stored on disk instead of RAM. One of the major features I've been
adding has been ACID transactions.
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be very feasible to do this natively in
P5. But, would it be possible to do it natively in P6? As in
