On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:58:32AM -0700, David Storrs wrote:
> /me shows ignorance yet again.
>
> For those of us who are not hardware types...what is "the new
> machine"? The Itanium? Does that really have enough market
> penetration at this point to be a worthy target? Or is the idea that,
>
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 10:16:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> And the Colorific class supposedly has a way to determine if two colors
> look about like each other. Again, I don't know how that works, but I
> don't need to.
>
>> AH> rule same_color($color is Colorific)
>> AH> {
>> AH>
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:52:22PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:46:43AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Obviously, values are pure and therefrom spring "virtues," while
> > objects are but vile clay -- fallible constructs of a sinful man,
> > pathetically trying to re
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:34:49PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
> wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
> the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
It's the difference
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 12:21:43PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> +&+|+^<<>>- bitwise (integer) operations
> +&= +|= +^= <<= >>=
I might have missed this, but if + introduces bitwise operations,
why aren't we using it in the shift operations?
+&+|+^
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 07:54:01AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>> traits = any ( ... )
>> requirements = .. & ..
>> if $requirements eq $traits
>>
>> Should that be traits = all()?
>
> No. Because later we say (effectively):
>
> print "True love\n"
> if a
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 11:26:01AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >I think we could also allow
> >
> >@a [??] @b [::] @c
> >
> >But it's not clear whether we can parse
> >
> >@a = [undef][...]
>
> How would you parse:
>
> @a = @b[[5]];
>
> (My intent: for @a; @b -> $x i
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:13:55PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Err.. I don't think so.
>
> # Date.pm
> grammar Date;
> my $date;
> rule date_rule { $date := }
>
> # uses_date.p6 (hmm.. I wonder what a nice extension would be...)
> use Date;
> my $date
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:14:25PM -0500, Me wrote:
> Hence the introduction of let:
>
> m/ { let $date := } /
>
> which makes (a symbol table like entry for) $date available
> somewhere via the match object.
Somewhere? where it appears in in the namespace of the caller.
Apparently there
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:48:41PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 04:43:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Only augment //= in subroutine declarations, //= would also work.
> > I love the //= operator, but in the context of sub declarations it's
> > confusing as
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 09:37:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Ah yes, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
Andrew
Hi
I'm sure I'm missing something fairly fundamental, but could someone
shed more light on the example:
# reduce list three-at-a-time
$sum_of_powers = reduce { $^partial_sum + $^x ** $^y } 0, @xs_and_ys;
specifically what is being iterated over, what gets bound and what does
it return?
I tho
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 02:40:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> How is !< different from >=?
>
> > It's just more syntax just like foo != bar
> > is the same as (foo > bar || foo < bar).
Not if you're using Quantum::SuperPositions ;-)
> > It might prove convenient to express the expression.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:15:54PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> There would still be a use of a /f like flag, though -- treat all (...)
> like (?:...). That would make the regex more likely to be DFA-able, and
> is often what I want but I don't want to clutter up my regex with those
> nasty ?:'s eve
15 matches
Mail list logo
