Author: larry
Date: Sun Jan 7 00:50:30 2007
New Revision: 13515
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Smartmatching is now hopefully more consistent, extensible, and optimizable.
(Suggestion to use single dispatch semantics on pattern was from luqui++.)
After single dispatch, pattern ca
Lots of interesting ideas. But I don't think the reverse-test
situation will arise all that frequently. How 'bout we let the user
just say:
my macro statement_control: { "when .accepts: " }
or some such...
Larry
On 1/5/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, that gives us:
given $pattern {
when .accepts(42) {...}
}
I think this type of usage should be encouraged with a bit more
huffmanization. My first thought would be to add C to invert
the arguments to ~~ versus C.
given @
Larry Wall wrote:
Anyway, that gives us:
given $pattern {
when .accepts(42) {...}
}
which given typical usage patterns of switch statements is probably
adequately huffmanized, unless we want to go for something shorter
than accepts/rejects, like
acc/rej
pix/nix
ok/b
Author: luqui
Date: Sat Jan 6 15:33:09 2007
New Revision: 13514
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Ugh. r3 of this simple change.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Author: luqui
Date: Sat Jan 6 15:28:54 2007
New Revision: 13513
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Fixed my fix.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod(original)
Author: luqui
Date: Sat Jan 6 15:22:29 2007
New Revision: 13512
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Fixed an error in the prefix | discussion.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/s
