On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 03:36:42PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> But the biggest problem is that if the user overloads 'equal' on two
> objects, the hash should consider them equal. We could require that to
> overload 'equal', you also have to overload .hash so that you've given
> some thought to th
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 11:57:30PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
> Alex Burr wrote:
>
> >[..] Actually, it would be useful sometimes
> >to be able to give a hash an explicit canonicalizer:
> >
> >my %msdos_files is canonicalized_by lc;
> >
> >my %fractio
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 02:20:59AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I forgot an important concretity. Hashes should compare based on the
> generic "equal" operator, which knows how to compare apples and apples,
> and oranges and oranges, and occasionally a red orange to an apple.
Um. Hashes don't rea
--- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adding unicode operators to Perl will just reinforce
> its reputation as
> a "line noise" language.
Perl6, the language with *real* runes.
Come to think of it, some of the ogham runes would
look more incharacter as a 'distribute' operator than
guill
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Then again, there are some very talented people
> with a lot of free
> > time in the Perl community; I wouldn't count it
> out.
>
> That looked to me like a "Damian troll", hoping that
> DC wou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> I would hope the former. However, what about this
compile-time
> integral power macro[1]?
>
> macro power ($x, $p) {
> if $p > 0 {
> { $x * power($x, $p-1) }
> }
> else {
> { 1 }
> }
> }
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> I would hope the former. However, what about this compile-time
> integral power macro[1]?
>
> macro power ($x, $p) {
> if $p > 0 {
> { $x * power($x, $p-1) }
> }
> else {
> { 1 }
> }
> }
>
