Darren Duncan wrote:
>> Perhaps, but then Junctions might not assume elements have equality or
>> identity operations defined.
>>
> As I recall, every type in Perl 6 has an equality and identity
> operation defined because the Object superclass provides one. If
> nothing else, the type's eq
At 8:13 PM +1200 9/26/06, Sam Vilain wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Within a system that already has an underlying
set-like type, the Junction in this case, a test
for uniqueness is (pardon any spelling):
all(@items).elements.size === @items.size
The all() will strip any duplicates, so
TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Sam Vilain wrote:
>
>> perl -MPerl6::Junction=one,all -le '@foo=qw(1 2 3 4); print "yes" if
>> (all(@foo) eq one(@foo))'
>> yes
>>
>
> But does it fail for duplicates? I guess not because junctions
> eliminate duplicates and you end up testing unique values as
> abov
TSa writes:
> I'm very glad, too. Even though I would like the new operator
> spelled / for aesthetic reason.
I think there'd be problems making that work. It's a prefix operator,
so it has to appear in term position, and we already have terms that
begin with C, in the form of regexes. Forcing r
HaloO,
Sam Vilain wrote:
Ah, yes, a notable omission. I understood a Seq as a list with
individual types for each element, which are applied positionally.
I can understand that the type-checker can produce this type
for immutable sequences.
The
superclass for things like Pair.
Hmm, have
HaloO,
is this subject not of interest? I just wanted to start a
discussion about the class composition process and how a
role designer can require the class to provide an equal
method and then augment it to achieve the correct behavior.
Contrast that with the need to do the same in every class
t
Author: audreyt
Date: Tue Sep 26 03:07:20 2006
New Revision: 12432
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
* S03: Document that chained comparisons short-circuit,
and never evaluates its arguments more than once.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Unless I'm mistaken, you may be going about this the wrong way.
>
> Within a system that already has an underlying
> set-like type, the Junction in this case, a test
> for uniqueness is (pardon any spelling):
>
>all(@items).elements.size === @items.size
>
> The all() wi
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Woohoo! I was about to complain about this whole "capture sigil"
nonsense, but I'm guessing somebody else already did. I also like the
new [,] :-)
I'm very glad, too. Even though I would like the new operator
spelled / for aesthetic reason.
Regards,
--
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> TSa wrote:
>
>>> role Set[::T = Item] does Collection[T] where {
>>> all(.members) =:= one(.members);
>>> };
>>>
>> Nice usage of junctions!
>>
>>
>
> But buggy - one means *exactly* one. So for an array of more than 1
> element, all(@array) never
HaloO,
Sam Vilain wrote:
perl -MPerl6::Junction=one,all -le '@foo=qw(1 2 3 4); print "yes" if
(all(@foo) eq one(@foo))'
yes
But does it fail for duplicates? I guess not because junctions
eliminate duplicates and you end up testing unique values as
above. E.g. all(1,1,2) == one(1,1,2) might act
On 9/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Log:
Slaughter of special [,], now is just listop form of [...]
To support |func() syntax, | is the new * (desigilized)
Woohoo! I was about to complain about this whole "capture sigil"
nonsense, but I'm guessing somebody else already di
12 matches
Mail list logo
