On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
wrote:
> On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
>> On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
>>> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The
On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
> On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
>> Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
>>> No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued
>>> use of
>>> ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does "
Jon Lang wrote:
I don't know enough about Unicode to suggest how to solve this. All I can
say is that my example above should never return a valid Range object unless
there is a way I can specify my own ordering and I use it.
That actually says something: it says that we may want to reconsider
On 2010-07-29 02:19, Jon Lang wrote:
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
notion that "aardvark".."apple" can be used to match any word in the
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
>> Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
>> things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
>> help it.
>
> Can I get an Amen? Amen!
> --
> Mark J.
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>> Can I get an Amen? Amen!
>>> --
>>> Mark J. Reed
>>
>> +1. I'm agnostic ;>
>
> Militant? :) ( http://tinyurl.com/3xjgxnl )
>
> No
Michael Zedeler wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
>> whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
>> notion that "aardvark".."apple" can be used to match any word in the
>> dictionary that comes between those
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does "a" .. "b" include "æther"?
This is where Germans and Swedes,
On 2010-07-29 00:24, Dave Whipp wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp
wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have
0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
should be
unordered -- that is,
for
Aaron Sherman wrote:
>> In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
>
>
> No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
> ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does "a" .. "b" include "æther"?
> This is where Germans and Swedes, for example, don't agree, but
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Does "..." also come with the 4 variations of endpoint inclusion/exclusion?
>
> If not, then it should, as I'm sure many times one would want to do this,
> say:
>
> for 0...^$n -> {...}
You can toggle the inclusion/exclusion of the ending condition by
choosing between "..."
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp
>> wrote:
>>
>> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
>>> as
>>> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp
>> wrote:
>>
>> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
>>> as
>>> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say "0.0 .. 1.0" instead.
-- Darren Duncan
That would be inconsistent. $x ~~ 0..1 means 0 <= $x <= 1. The f
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say "0.0 .. 1.0" instead.
-- Darren Duncan
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
is treated as
for (
Darren Duncan wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed.
I would rather that ".." stay with intervals and "..." with generators.
Another thing to consider if one is looking at huffmanization is how often the
versions that exclude en
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed. ".."
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and "..." is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes, commas and the basic, C-derived math and log
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed. ".."
> has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and "..." is
> probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
> of quotes, com
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed. ".."
> has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and "..." is
> probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
> of quotes, co
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
> unordered -- that is,
>
> for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
> for (0...10).p
Moritz Lenz wrote:
I fear what Perl 6 needs is not to broaden the range of discussion even
further, but to narrow it down to the essential points. Personal opinion
only.
OK, as a completely serious proposal, the semantics of "for 0..10 { ...
}" should be for the compiler to complain "sorry, t
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> Dave Whipp wrote:
>>>for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>>> is treated as
>>>for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
>>
>> Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
>
> Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
> think I will:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
Was my specific proposal entirely serio
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> Can I get an Amen? Amen!
>> --
>> Mark J. Reed
>
> +1. I'm agnostic ;>
Militant? :) ( http://tinyurl.com/3xjgxnl )
Nothing inherently religious about "amen" (or me), but I'll accept
"+
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
> Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
> things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
> help it.
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed
TSa wrote:
> Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
> test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from && to ||:
>
> $a .. $b # means $a <= $_ && $_ <= $b if $a < $b
> $b .. $a # means $b <= $_ || $_ <= $a if $a < $b
This is the same sort of discontinuity
> Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
> test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from && to ||:
>
> $a .. $b # means $a <= $_ && $_ <= $b if $a < $b
> $b .. $a # means $b <= $_ || $_ <= $a if $a < $b
I think that's what "not", "!" are for!
On Wednesday, 28. July 2010 05:12:52 Michael Zedeler wrote:
> Writing ($a .. $b).reverse doesn't make any sense if the result were a
> new Range, since Ranges should then only be used for inclusion tests (so
> swapping endpoints doesn't have any meaningful interpretation), but
> applying .reverse c
yary wrote:
> though would a parallel batch of an anonymous block be more naturally written
> as
> all(0...10) -> $x { ... } # Spawn 11 threads
No,
hyper for 0..10 -> $x { ... } # spawn as many threads
# as the compiler thinks are reasonable
I think one (already specced) syntax for the
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
> unordered -- that is,
>
> for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
> for (0...10).pic
Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
> as a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
> should be unordered -- that is,
>
>for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
>for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
Sorry
Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
> unordered -- that is,
>
> for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
> for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
>
> Then the wh
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
35 matches
Mail list logo
