Moritz Lenz moritz-at-casella.verplant.org |Perl 6| wrote:
map *is* lazy, as are all list builtins that can be lazy (which doesn't
include stuff like sort, which has to look at all items anyway).
Are you sure that it doesn't imply order of evaluation by default? I'm
all for it (to be diff
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> Consider something like a 'map' call, only I want it to be lazy.
map *is* lazy, as are all list builtins that can be lazy (which doesn't
include stuff like sort, which has to look at all items anyway).
> I know that a
> list can contain internally iterators that generat
Consider something like a 'map' call, only I want it to be lazy. I know that a
list can contain internally iterators that generate elements as needed or
perhaps in the background. But how do you create such a thing? Something like:
@lazy_list := parallel-map { get_info($_) } @filenames;
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) thomas-at-sandlass.de |Perl 6| wrote:
a() proceed: orelse b();
CATCH
{
... # make $! into return value
goto proceed;
}
This kind of needs to know the variable the return value of a()
is stored into. This is easy if orelse is checking $! anyway.
But do
"TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" schreef:
> Larry Wall:
>> Another potential issue is that CATCH doesn't distinguish exceptions
>> coming from the current block from those coming from the subcall to
>> a(). So it could end up returning Failure from the current block when
>> you intended to force return of F
HaloO,
On Thursday, 4. September 2008 03:39:20 Larry Wall wrote:
> Another potential issue is that CATCH doesn't distinguish exceptions
> coming from the current block from those coming from the subcall to a().
> So it could end up returning Failure from the current block when
> you intended to fo
There are some tests for List.uniq in the test suite, and pugs
implements it, but it's not in S29.
Damian seems to have though we should have it:
http://groups.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/4c8c9bd73c862bed
So should we have it? If not, I'll replace the tests with
eval_dies_ok('(1, 2).
