Author: lwall
Date: 2009-03-16 02:24:38 +0100 (Mon, 16 Mar 2009)
New Revision: 25849
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
Log:
make blocks transparent to Junctions (in the absence of explicit parameter
types)
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
==
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 07:26:00PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> You can detect junctions by smart-matching against the Junction type
> (e.g. $sum ~~ Junction).
>
> my @s=1|11,2,3,4,5,6;
> loop {
>my $sum = [+] @s.pick(3);
>say $sum ~~ Junction ?? $sum.eigenstates.min !! $sum;
> }
This isn't the first (or second, or third, or fourth...) time that
I've seen complications arise with regard to junctions. Every time,
the confusion arises when some variation of the question "is it a
junction?" is raised. Ultimately, this is because Perl is trying it's
darnedest to treat Junctio
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Eg.
$ perl6
> my @s=1|11,2,3,4,5,6;my @x; loop {...@x=@s.pick(3);([+]
@x).eigenstates.min.say}
8
6
Method 'eigenstates' not found for invocant of class 'Integer'
>
You can detect junctions by smart-matching against the Junction type
(e.
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
The following (the n:> is to mark the lines) are legal:
1:> my @x = 1,2,3,4; ([+] @x).say; # output 10
2:> my @x = 1|11,2,3,4; ([+] @a).perl.say; # output any(10,20)
3:> my @x = 1|11,2,3,4; ([+] @a).eigenstates.min.say; # output 10
However, the next line isnt
4:> my @x
The following (the n:> is to mark the lines) are legal:
1:> my @x = 1,2,3,4; ([+] @x).say; # output 10
2:> my @x = 1|11,2,3,4; ([+] @a).perl.say; # output any(10,20)
3:> my @x = 1|11,2,3,4; ([+] @a).eigenstates.min.say; # output 10
However, the next line isnt
4:> my @x = 1,2,3,4; ([+] @a).eigens
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:11:16AM +0300, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
> But I recently read this on irc:
>
> 2009-03-12
> 23:16pugs_svnr25809 | lwall++ | This decrease in consistency on
> the syntactic level is offset by an
> 23:16pugs_svnr25809 | lwall++ | increase in consistency o
Original post not very clear. So here goes again:
First statement (below) says: dot forms of adverbs eliminated.
Second appears to say: adverb form is translated to dot form.
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
But I recently read this on irc:
2009-03-12
23:16pugs_svnr25809 | lwall++ | This decr
But I recently read this on irc:
2009-03-12
23:16pugs_svnr25809 | lwall++ | This decrease in consistency on
the syntactic level is offset by an
23:16pugs_svnr25809 | lwall++ | increase in consistency on the
semantic level, as suggested by rouso++.
23:16pugs_svnr25809 | l
