On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You don't actually need a macro in that case:
if 0 { q<
...
> }
Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
code-commenting construct where "you just change the 0 to a 1". After
all, we already have #{}. Incide
Stuart Cook writes:
> On 8/19/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >if 0 {
> >...
> >}
>
> The one disadvantage of that approach is that it will break if the
> "commented-out" code temporarily fails to compile. If that's a
> problem, though, you could always write your own macr
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:47 AM
> To: Perl6 Language List
> Subject: Re: NEXT and the general loop statement
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:44:35AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[E
On 8/19/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if 0 {
...
}
The one disadvantage of that approach is that it will break if the
"commented-out" code temporarily fails to compile. If that's a
problem, though, you could always write your own macro.
Stuart Cook
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 17:57:09 2006
New Revision: 11155
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
Log:
List comprehensions via junctional syntax.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/s
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 16:27:16 2006
New Revision: 11154
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
Allow for switch bundling.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:58:20AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
: It occurred to me that other day that in our "in house" C code we
: somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
: 5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
: code that you wrap
It occurred to me that other day that in our "in house" C code we
somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
code that you wrap it in a CPP if statement. The logic being that
if you haven't deleted t
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 07:53:14PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: ps. Then there's the perl5-behaviour of "perl -n0e unlink" where also
: the intervening switches can get arguments. This could be expanded so
: that all chars for which there's no 1-char alias defined, are
: parameters. So C<-aHellobWo
On 8/18/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:56:30PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: What about combined short switches like C<-abc> to mean C<-a -b -c>?
: Will perl6 support this notation or not?
Hmm, that opens up a world of hurt. Either you have to distinguish a
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:09:21 2006
New Revision: 11137
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
conjecture about conversion of undef to NaN
grammo from Mark Reed++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:00:28 2006
New Revision: 11136
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
No such thing as a "first invocant" anymore.
Clarified NEXT semantics.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
=
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:44:35AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
: >this perl5ish:
: >
: >while (1) {
: >$num = rand;
: >print $num;
: >last
On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:27, 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.)
OTOH, C programmers can as well assume 'cmp' being an
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:56:30PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: What about combined short switches like C<-abc> to mean C<-a -b -c>?
: Will perl6 support this notation or not?
Hmm, that opens up a world of hurt. Either you have to distinguish a
--abc from -abc, or you have to have some kind of fa
Author: audreyt
Date: Fri Aug 18 08:11:42 2006
New Revision: 11135
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod
Log:
* S13 and S06: Remove the mentioning of "invocants" for
multi dispatch; they are now simply "parameters", or
"important parameters" for dispatch pu
On 8/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+To give both a long and a short switch name, you may use the pair
+notation. The key will be considered the short switch name, while
+the variable name will be considered the long switch name. So if
+the previous declaration had been:
+
On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
this perl5ish:
while (1) {
$num = rand;
print $num;
last if $num < 0.9;
print ","; # NEXT
}
print "\n";
18 matches
Mail list logo
