Re: syntax question on parameter lists

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:36:09PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: : Yes, but where does resolve down to a typename? : My reading of STD.pm is that becomes a : (since it's not a 'where' clause in this case), and is currently : one of , , or . Value is supposed to include fulltypename, but I

Re: syntax question on parameter lists

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:18:38PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:26:02AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote: > : S06 shows how to define named-only parameters, "marked with a prefix :". > But no example shows anything more than a bare parameter name. No type is > ever given! >

Re: default parameters in methods

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:35:37AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote: : It is not specified in the Synopses as I recall, but I believe that this is useful enough that it must be made to work: : :method bytes (Encoding :$encoding = .encoding) :returns Int : : or even : :method bytes (Enco

Re: syntax question on parameter lists

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:26:02AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote: : S06 shows how to define named-only parameters, "marked with a prefix :". But no example shows anything more than a bare parameter name. No type is ever given! : : Looking through my copy of STD.pm, I'm baffled, as it seems not

default parameters in methods

It is not specified in the Synopses as I recall, but I believe that this is useful enough that it must be made to work: method bytes (Encoding :$encoding = .encoding) returns Int or even method bytes (Encoding :$encoding = self!encoding) returns Int That is, a named-only parameter,

syntax question on parameter lists

S06 shows how to define named-only parameters, "marked with a prefix :". But no example shows anything more than a bare parameter name. No type is ever given! Looking through my copy of STD.pm, I'm baffled, as it seems not to take types in parameter lists at all. So, is it method bytes ( E

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Juerd Waalboer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My suggestion: > > consequential blocks ...which would make other blocks inconsequential? Nuh-uh. -- Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

My suggestion: consequential blocks -- Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn salutojn, Juerd Waalboer: Perl hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the other hand, that may be the answer right there: "when-blocks". We have those already: given...when. -- Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH skribis 2008-04-10 19:41 (-0400): > On the other hand, that may be the answer right there: "when-blocks". No, this is a when block: when /foo/ { ... } :) -- Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn salutojn, Juerd Waalboer: Perl hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: failure notice

It will always be too early, and too late. There will always be reasons not to do it till next year, and reasons you're hosed because it wasn't done years ago. Now is all we've got at the moment... Larry That's how C++ was. The call to ANSI was hot on the heels of a statement saying i

"episodes" of execution

See my latest, in section 4.2, for a first cut on "episodes". I took a first stab at formalizing all phases of translation and execution, and documented what was known about the episodes I knew about, especially those corresponding to keywords that introduce an "episodic block" (as a generaliza

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 18:58 , Bob Rogers wrote: From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:53 -0700 On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote: Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them "situations" in the definition of (eval-when)...

RE: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Mark J. Reed >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:26 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; perl6-language@perl.org >Subject: Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc. > >but "tag" >for the keyword feels right to me. W

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:53 -0700 On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote: > >> Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them "situations" in the > definition of (eval-when)... That's not bad. FWIW, eval-when o

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them "situations" in the > > definition of (eval-when)... > > That's not bad. Oh, sure, ignore it when I first said it, but let John quote me and allasudden it's notable.. :-)

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote: > I've consolidated all the discussion into one reply: > > > >> The perldocs call them "Five specially named code blocks", The Camel > names them individually (e.g. BEGIN block). How about phase blocks? They > control in what phase

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

I've consolidated all the discussion into one reply: >> The perldocs call them "Five specially named code blocks", The Camel names them individually (e.g. BEGIN block). How about phase blocks? They control in what phase of compilation/runtime the code runs in. >> I don't know, "phase" sound

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:38:27PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2008, at 13:29 , John M. Dlugosz wrote: > >I might have misremembered, but i thought labels were followed by a > >colon in Perl 6. A quick scan of the docs... " > > > >It is illegal for a provisional subrouti

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 13:29 , John M. Dlugosz wrote: I might have misremembered, but i thought labels were followed by a colon in Perl 6. A quick scan of the docs... " It is illegal for a provisional subroutine call to be followed by a colon postfix, since such a colon is allowed only on an indi

My specdoc (was Failure Notice)

Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote: Just so you don't think this is warnocked, I'm looking at it, and thinking about it. Thanks. I thought perhaps everyone filtered it out since it had a bad subject line. By and large it seems to be going the right direction, though I've naturall

Re: failure notice

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:11:05PM -0700, jerry gay wrote: : On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > On a larger question, I'm wondering if it's time to slush/freeze : > the Synopses as historical documents and put all spec effort into : > the new form (presum

Re: failure notice

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On a larger question, I'm wondering if it's time to slush/freeze > the Synopses as historical documents and put all spec effort into > the new form (presumably as a wiki that knows how to serialize into > a document). I

Re: failure notice

Just so you don't think this is warnocked, I'm looking at it, and thinking about it. By and large it seems to be going the right direction, though I've naturally got a number of quibbles. Probably each quibble needs to be a separate thread though, since many of them will probably breed discussion.

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:35:57PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote: : As I read it, the original question was about the actual keyword - : e.g. the word "BEGIN" - as distinct from the block it's attached to. : Though I agree we need a general term for the latter, the name "event : block" seems to imply t

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

As I read it, the original question was about the actual keyword - e.g. the word "BEGIN" - as distinct from the block it's attached to. Though I agree we need a general term for the latter, the name "event block" seems to imply that "BEGIN" et al are events, which might be ok or might cause confusi

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-mail.com |Perl 6| wrote: Now you've lost me. I was pretty sure that was the block name. AIUI, you can give arbitrary names to any block, and these names function the same way (i.e. can be used in flow control statements), but they also happen to control when the block

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:52:38AM -0700, jerry gay wrote: : On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM, John M. Dlugosz : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > Consider the words that may be used to introduce a block for a special : > purpose, like : > : > BEGIN : > END : > INIT : > CATCH : > etc. : > : > Wha

Re: What I'm Working On

HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: Can you give a pointer to where this was discussed? It was said by $Larry in the "Adding linear interpolation to an array" thread where I also tried to explain co- and contravariant typing of container types. Regards, TSa. -- The Angel of Geometry and the Devil

Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM, John M. Dlugosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Consider the words that may be used to introduce a block for a special > purpose, like > > BEGIN > END > INIT > CATCH > etc. > > What do you call those? They are not even "special named blocks" because > that is no