On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:45:06PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:44 PM
> > To: Perl6 Language List
> >
> > Wasn't NEXT supposed to do something tricky, such as being mutually
> > exclus
在 2006/8/18 上午 3:31 時，Ben Morrow 寫到：
Just to make sure I've got all this straight:
=:= compares names
=== compares containers
eqv compares values
=:= evaluates both sides as lvalue -- that's VAR() -- and compare
them with ===.
=== evaluates both sides as rvalue and, for containe
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:44 PM
> To: Perl6 Language List
>
> Wasn't NEXT supposed to do something tricky, such as being mutually
> exclusive with LAST? I remember a debate some time ago where some
> complained
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:44 PM
> To: Perl6 Language List
> Subject: Re: NEXT and the general loop statement
> Wasn't NEXT supposed to do something tricky, such as being mutually
> exclusive with LAST? I remembe
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Mark J. Reed"):
> On 8/17/06, David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >$a=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > >$c=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > >$d=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > >
> > >So $a, $c, and $d may all have the same *value*
> > >(or "snapshot", when eval
On 8/16/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Is the output 01234 or 12345?
I'd say 01234 on the theory that the 3-arg loop is really saying:
$n = 0;
while $n < 5 {
NEXT { ++$n }
NEXT { print $n }
}
and also on the theory that block exiting blocks always run i
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:00:17AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> As a lead-in, I should say that Synopsis 3 has a good and complete
> explanation of these matters and has had it for several weeks, in my
> opinion.
>
> Since you are wanting to compare two mutable Array, just use the eqv
> operat
Author: larry
Date: Thu Aug 17 16:45:20 2006
New Revision: 6
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
Added explicit mention of "self" by suggestion of markjreed++.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
==
--
Author: larry
Date: Thu Aug 17 16:39:38 2006
New Revision: 5
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
More old use of multiple invocant terminology changed to longnames.
Added mechanism for both short and long switch names.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
Author: larry
Date: Thu Aug 17 16:08:34 2006
New Revision: 3
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
Some leave simplifications.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
I was just reading through S12, and it doesn't seem to ever actually
state that the default invocant name is "self". (Is it self? Or is
it $?SELF, which doesn't appear at all?) S12 mentions declaring an
explicit invocant with : in the method signature, and that it's
optional; and then later on
David Green wrote:
No, look at the example I've been using. Two arrays (1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and (1,
2, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) clearly have different (unevaluated) contents. "eqv" only tells
me whether they have the same value (when @x and @y are evaluated).
That's a different question --
On 8/17/06, David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>$a=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>$c=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>$d=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>
>So $a, $c, and $d may all have the same *value*
>(or "snapshot", when evaluated all the way down
>through nesting and references), i.e. they
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:18:55PM -0600, David Green wrote:
: So perhaps what I'm looking for is more syntactic
: sugar for easily traversing nested data
: structures in different ways.
Quoth S03:
If that's not enough flexibility, there is also an C function
that can be passed addition
On 8/16/06, David Green wrote:
$a=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
$c=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
$d=[1, 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED];
$a =:= $c; #false, different variables
$a === $c; #true, same elements make up $a and $c
$a eqv $c; #true, same elements therefore
I don't know if I've made this clear, but over the last few years I've
been treating "but True" and "but False" as design smells. They're
fine as a workaround for dire circumstances and uncooperative types,
but you'll not find me designing very many of the core interfaces to
use them, or other run
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 11:27:21AM -0600, David Green wrote:
: However, what I'm wondering is whether Order::Same is "but true" and
: the others "but false"? (Which makes cmp in boolean context the same
: as eqv, but it seems to make sense that way.)
We should not be encouraging people to use c
On 8/17/06, Reed, Mark (TBS) wrote:
S03, lines 418-420: "[cmp] always returns C,
C, or C (which numerify to -1, 0, or +1)."
Shouldn't Order::Increase numerify to +1 and Order::Decrease to -1? In
which case it would be clearer to put them in respective order above...
Maybe you could view it e
On 8/17/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
At 11:16 PM -0600 8/16/06, David Green wrote:
I just want [1,2] to be === to [1,2], or [1,2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be equal to
[1,2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] but !=== [1,2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- eqv won't work in the latter case
(regardless of Seq vs. Array -- I didn't t
-- Original message --
From: "Reed, Mark (TBS)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> S03, lines 418-420: "[cmp] always returns C,
> C, or C (which numerify to -1, 0, or +1)."
>
> Shouldn't Order::Increase numerify to +1 and Order::Decrease to -1? In
> which case it would be cl
S03, lines 418-420: "[cmp] always returns C,
C, or C (which numerify to -1, 0, or +1)."
Shouldn't Order::Increase numerify to +1 and Order::Decrease to -1? In
which case it would be clearer to put them in respective order above...
S02 states that there is no ".length" method on Str's (or for cumulative
element length of Arrays); you have to ask explicitly for the units you
want to count . But then it goes on to define the StrPos and StrLen
types, which are unit-agnostic. So why not have a .length that returns
a StrLen?
Just noticed this on line 474: "Variables with native types does not
support undefinedness"
On 8/17/06, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generally speaking, the direct use of === is more for specialized
purposes, somewhat like the direct use of =:= is. If one can't tell
the difference between === and eqv, they most likely want snapshot
semantics anyway, and so might as well for
On 8/16/06, Agent Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/17/06, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where can I find a pod2html that groks the p6 version of POD? I want
> to format my fresh-from-svn copies of the doc...
>
...
And there're also an online HTML version of the Perl 6 Spec
At 11:16 PM -0600 8/16/06, David Green wrote:
On 8/15/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
At 2:51 PM -0600 8/15/06, David Green wrote:
[...]
You are right, but we have both Seq and Array types, so depending
which one you use, you want either the === or eqv operators to do
what you want. There is no rea
26 matches
Mail list logo
