On 2010-07-28 06:54, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Michael Zedeler wrote:
Writing for ($a .. $b).reverse -> $c { ...} may then blow up because it
turns out that $b doesn't have a .succ method when coercing to sequence
(where the LHS must have an initial value), just like
On 2010-07-27 23:50, Aaron Sherman wrote:
PS: On a really abstract note, requiring that ($a .. $b).reverse be lazy
will put new constraints on the right hand side parameter. Previously, it
didn't have to have a value of its own, it just had to be comparable to
other values. for example:
for $
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> As a special case, perhaps you can treat ranges as special and not as simple
> iterators. To be honest, I wasn't thinking about the possibility of such
> special cases, but about iterators in general. You can't generically reverse
> lazy constructs without running afoul of th
Sorry I haven't responded for so long... much going on in my world.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 07:31:14PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> > 2) We deny that a range whose LHS is "larger" than its RHS makes sense,
> but
> > we also don't provi
