On Feb 10, 4:38 pm, dam...@conway.org (Damian Conway) wrote:
> I sincerely hope that the future community of designers of Perl 6 's
> documentation format will find a way to honour and support the very
> different needs of *all* the creators and users of Perl, not just the
> needs of the most prom
Jan 21, 2010 4:04 PM, "Darren Duncan" wrote:
David Brunton wrote:
> I notice that C returns False and deletes the key for a key
> whose value goes to zero or less than zero, issuing a warning in the
> latter case. Is it the case that C always evaluates to False
> in Boolean con
I notice that C returns False and deletes the key for a key
whose value goes to zero or less than zero, issuing a warning in the
latter case. Is it the case that C always evaluates to False
in Boolean context when negative?
Inadvertently replied to this off-list...
Moritz wrote:
>There's no need for any "keyword" to be in STD.pm. STD.pm just defines
>the grammar. Syntactically fork will be like just another sub, so it can
>safely be handled in the compiler's runtime.
>
>> * Where will C, C, and possible friends (e.g.
This last SOTO re-reminded me of what an inveterate fan I am of Perl 6. Wow.
My question today is about concurrency. I can imagine how things like IPC
Mailboxes (e.g. RFC 86) happen in modules. I can also imagine why Threads
(e.g. RFC 1) should be in modules- given the obvious dependence on u
>From an IRC conversation earlier today:
A quick scan of S05 reveals definitions for these seven special named
assertions:
<'...'>
Twenty-four more are listed in docs/Perl6/Overview/Rule.pod (some of which are
used in S05, but I don't think there are definitions).
<"...">
Aaron Sherman wrote:
>Is the goal to avoid namespace pollution? If so, shouldn't there be a
>truly "metaish" way of getting at the internal namespace so that someone
>doesn't accidentally render an object unusable by defining the wrong
>method name (which you can prevent with an error if the ob
Hi all,
There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies
$obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta.
Is there any reason I shouldn't change the tests from meta to META, make the
corresponding changes in Pugs.Prim, and then fix any other examples or modules
it brok
