On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 04:25:49PM -0500, Kyle Hasselbacher wrote:
> use v6;
>
> my $s; # ! $x.defined
> my @a; # @a.defined
>
> That's the current Rakudo behavior. RT #64968 suggests that this is a
> bug. In Perl 5, @a would not be defined until something was put into
> it. Which should i
Hinrik Örn Sigurðsson wrote:
I was wondering if there had been any discussion about how to type
file and directory names in Perl 6. I've read a couple of posts about
file test operators, where some have suggested making filenames
special, either as a subtype of Str or something else entirely. Tha
I was wondering if there had been any discussion about how to type
file and directory names in Perl 6. I've read a couple of posts about
file test operators, where some have suggested making filenames
special, either as a subtype of Str or something else entirely. That
way Str wouldn't have all the
Author: jani
Date: 2009-08-13 14:19:25 +0200 (Thu, 13 Aug 2009)
New Revision: 27978
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Containers.pod
Log:
S32/Containers iterator rephrase (similar to S09 hash keys spec)
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S32-setting-library/Containers.pod
==
Raiph Mellor hyperpunned:
> With this whiny man exchange ultimately having bourne supreme fruit,
> the apocalypse watch for the post damian weekend begins...
ARRRG!
Damian ;-)
> Excellent idea. But may I suggest you perhaps might like to hold off
> that discussion until next week?
>
> @Larry had some very fruitful discussions about the long-overdue Pod
> spec during YAPC::EU last week and, as a result, I plan to (finally!!!)
> release a new version of S26 this week-end.
On 2009-Aug-11, at 1:38 pm, raiph mellor wrote:
For a quick backgrounder, Larry had talked of reserving backtick for
use as a user defined operator [1], Mark had suggested its use as a
(tightly bound) comment [2], and James et al had suggested using it to
declare units [3].
I'd like to see unit
Raiph Mellor wrote:
> Anyhoo, I'd love to see a session of brainstorming, with nitty gritty
> detail, about possible ways to get what you guys and Mark and I and
> perhaps others think we would like to see in the way of super tightly
> woven together comments and code, where said brainstorming in
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Timothy, you raise a good point...
> [discussion]
> I think this can be made to work without much fuss
I'm curious about these sorts of conversations, and the way the
community works in relation to them.
I'm also curious about this specific
