On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:20:20PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Two questions:
:
: 1. How would the capture sigil affect the use of capture objects as
: replacements for perl5's references?
I don't see how it would have any effect at all, unless the P5 ref happened
to be to a typeglob, or had bo
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:03:45PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: How would I construct a capture literal that has both an invocant and
: at least one positional argument? How do I distinguish this from a
: capture literal that has no invocant and at least two positional
: arguments?
:
: Gut insti
Two questions:
1. How would the capture sigil affect the use of capture objects as
replacements for perl5's references?
2. With the introduction of the capture sigil, would it be worthwhile
to allow someone to specify a signature as a capture object's 'type'?
That is:
my :(Dog: Str $name, Nu
How would I construct a capture literal that has both an invocant and
at least one positional argument? How do I distinguish this from a
capture literal that has no invocant and at least two positional
arguments?
Gut instinct: if the first parameter in a list is delimited from the
rest using a c
Larry Wall wrote:
> Okay, I think this is worth bringing up to the top level.
>
> Fact: Captures seem to be turning into a first-class data structure
> that can represent:
>
> argument lists
> match results
> XML nodes
> anything that requires all of $, @, and % bits.
>
Also;
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Ok, I dkimmed through the synopses again and didn't see this offhand.
>
> If I have two arrays @a and @b and I wish to create a two-element list
> out of them - a la Perl5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - what's the
> correct way to do
> that in Perl6? If it's stil
All sounds good up to:
Larry Wall wrote:
The cultural ambiguity is also being reduced insofar as we're trying
to discourage use of bare constants in favor of sigilled constants.
If you see a bare function name you should generally assume it
has arguments in Perl 6.
Well, in that case, should
On 9/21/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A method never takes arguments unless you use : or (), so those are
all infix.
Well, all righty then. Yay for unambiguity! Or disambiguation. Or
nonambiguosity. Or whatever...
The design team worked Really Hard to get rid of that particula
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 12:16:26PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Which means that argumentless subroutine calls will presumably be rare
: in P6 code, but what about methods? Methods with no arguments (apart
: from the invocant) will always be commonplace, and it seems to me that
: you have exactly
On 9/21/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: note how the ambiguity of the following are resolved:
:
: a|$b
: a | $b
: a |$b
:
Don't think so. The situation is exactly analogous to:
a%$b
a % $b
a %$b
The cultural ambiguity is also being reduced insofar as we're trying
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:29:57AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I'll read that as "conversation terminated".
The conversation is never terminated. However, every now and then I
make feeble attempts to be decisive. :)
: Can you please update S03's "Junctive operators" section to note how the
:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Ok, I dkimmed through the synopses again and didn't see this offhand.
That's what I get for dkimming instead of reading. Or even skimming.
OK, so "Capture objects fill the ecological niche of references in
Perl 6." Got it. Perhaps we should also mention the use of Captu
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Ok, I dkimmed through the synopses again and didn't see this offhand.
If I have two arrays @a and @b and I wish to create a two-element list
out of them - a la Perl5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - what's the
correct way to do
that in Perl6? If it's still ([EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maintainer: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Aug 2004
- Last Modified: 18 Sept 2006
+ Last Modified: 20 Sept 2006
Number: 2
- Version: 69
+ Version: 70
+| capture/arguments/match
+|$args; # all of the above
I'll read that as
Mark J. Reed skribis 2006-09-21 9:53 (-0400):
> If I have two arrays @a and @b and I wish to create a two-element list
> out of them - a la Perl5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - what's the
> correct way to do
> that in Perl6? If it's still ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]), then
Ok, I dkimmed through the synopses again and didn't see this offhand.
If I have two arrays @a and @b and I wish to create a two-element list
out of them - a la Perl5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - what's the
correct way to do
that in Perl6? If it's still ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PR
On 9/20/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
> What we really need is a unary operator that is sugar for [,](=(...)). Just
> don't anyone suggest *. :-)
I was thinking about that. I wonder if [\] would make sense, or is that
just begging to have in-editor parsers fall
17 matches
Mail list logo
