Author: lwall
Date: 2009-01-26 05:06:43 +0100 (Mon, 26 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 25031
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S03-operators.pod
src/perl6/Cursor.pmc
src/perl6/STD.pm
t/spec/S02-names_and_variables/names.t
t/spec/S29-hash/exists.t
Log:
[STD, S03] more operator alignment and cleanup
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 12:33:15AM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: pugs, rakudo and elf all agree that [1..4].elems should be 4 - and I
: agree too.
:
: What about
: sub f(@a) { @a.elems }; say f([1, 2, 3, 4])
: Again all three implementations say that it's 4, and I'm confused.
:
: Now for
: say ele
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:26:34AM -0800, Mark Lentczner wrote:
> I've got three small operator questions before the new table of the
> operators is done:
>
>
> 1) Is C no longer an operator? It is still listed in S03, but
> STD.pm doesn't parse it.
Have it in my STD now. :)
> 2) Is C<\> no
pugs, rakudo and elf all agree that [1..4].elems should be 4 - and I
agree too.
What about
sub f(@a) { @a.elems }; say f([1, 2, 3, 4])
Again all three implementations say that it's 4, and I'm confused.
Now for
say elems [1, 2, 3, 4]
pugs says 4, rakudo says 1, and elf says "Undefined subroutine
I've got three small operator questions before the new table of the
operators is done:
1) Is C no longer an operator? It is still listed in S03, but
STD.pm doesn't parse it.
2) Is C<\> no longer an operator? S03 lists it as a symbolic unary,
but STD.pm doesn't parse it that way.
3) Sh
