Re: Docstrings in Perl 6

ocks in place of actual strings a la > > Python, is that the documentation is still independent of the source > > code, and need not be in the same file. > > That's certainly true of your proposal. However, many might argue that > one *disadvantage* of using Pod bloc

Re: Files, Directories, Resources, Operating Systems

'm already biased. -- Regards, Charles Bailey On 12/9/08, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008 Dec 9, at 19:56, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: >> * Aristotle Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-10 01:10]: >>> Well go on. >> >> Bt

Re: assign-if-uninitialized [Was: Generalizing ?? !!]

On 6/19/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:50:35AM -0400, Charles Bailey wrote: : Yep. For that matter, if I had to pick one change in this area that'd : have maximum impact, I'd say a good assign-if-uninitialized idiom : would be way ahead of

Re: Generalizing ?? !!

[ Sorry to fall off the net for several days . . .] On 6/13/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 05:08:34PM -0400, Charles Bailey wrote: : I'm concerned that the relevant precedent isn't just Perl5. The ?: spelling : of the ternary is pretty de

Re: Generalizing ?? !!

ot +*-/, but would ?: hurt? At a minimum, is there a strong enough reason for changing it that it will be difficult for skeptics to describe it as merely another ideological change? -- Regards, Charles Bailey Lists: bailey _dot_ charles _at_ gmail _dot_ com Other: bailey _at_ newman _dot_ upenn _dot_ edu

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14376 - doc/trunk/design/syn

On 4/24/07, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 06:45:12PM -0400, Charles Bailey wrote: : On 4/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : >Note that unless no longer allows an else : It's probably that I'm just having another day whe

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14376 - doc/trunk/design/syn

han to forbid it. It's a bit like saying one can "continue" after a "while" but not an "until". Is there a parsing advantage that I've missed, or does it disambiguate some other construct? -- Regards, Charles Bailey Lists: bailey _dot_ charles _at_ gmail _dot_ com Other: bailey _at_ newman _dot_ upenn _dot_ edu

Re: underscores in the core lib

course, if everyone thinks coffeecup is the obvious choice, then that's a better candidate for the core name, but if only a subset think coffeecup is valid, then they might choose an alternate Huffman code.) -- Regards, Charles Bailey Lists: bailey _dot_ charles _at_ gmail _dot_ com Other: baile

Re: === and array-refs

fact that the alias exists violate the guarantee of immutability, or does the guarantee just mean that at the instant the test is executed, both the contents and container are the same? (If the latter, I'm not sure in what practical situations I'd use it.) If I've -- once again -- totally missed the boat, please be patient. -- Regards, Charles Bailey Lists: bailey _dot_ charles _at_ gmail _dot_ com Other: bailey _at_ newman _dot_ upenn _dot_ edu

Re: ===, =:=, ~~, eq and == revisited (blame ajs!) -- Explained

w) Expectation based on glossing as "equivalent" rather than "equal value". =:=- Defined identically, with no promise about contents (what I think === means now). Expectation based on the use of : to indicate declaratory behavior Just two cents from a Perl6 newbie. -- Regards, Charles Bailey Lists: bailey _dot_ charles _at_ gmail _dot_ com Other: bailey _at_ newman _dot_ upenn _dot_ edu