On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 02:10:17PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> I recall reading that at least in certain math/logic papers that a
> programming language type system can be defined logically in terms
> of pure sets, making it essentially self-defined without needing to
> rely on external definitio
What is the behaviour of an *uncaught* exception, particularly with
respect to CHECK/END/LEAVE/LAST blocks, destructors, overloading of
the stringify operator on exception objects, the order in which these
things are executed, and the exit code of the process? (And anything
else that I haven't thou
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:37:33AM -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
> I misstated my worry here. In this case, by the same rule that "my Dog
> $foo" gets the right version because the longname is aliased to the
> shortname in the lexical scope of the use, it would work.
>
> What I'm actually concerned
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:55:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >The important question here is this one:
> >
> > - when 'uncommented', is it a no-op?
> >
> >Which isn't true for #{}/{}, because {} introduces new lexical
> >scope.
> Why would you care about introducing a new lexical scope? You wou
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
> > #{
> >if $baz {
> >$foo.bar
> >}
> > }
> >
> > To uncomment, remove the # before the {.
>
> This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
> questions. Is code inside of a #{}:
>
> - p
On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 12:00:17AM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> As a lead-in, I should say that Synopsis 3 has a good and complete
> explanation of these matters and has had it for several weeks, in my
> opinion.
>
> Since you are wanting to compare two mutable Array, just use the eqv
> operat
