On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:02 AM, GitHub wrote:
> Of note is that this spec is in Pod6, because that's the version of Pod
> I'm familiar with, I can't be bothered to convert to a far less familiar
> POD at the moment, and frankly the specs should be in Pod6 in the first
> place :) .
>
Github do
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:00 PM, wrote:
> Once the & operator is in rakudo, though... I gather I /could/ do something
> like the following
>
> ^ [ * & ] $
>
> And this would in effect ensued that the sequence "abc" doesn't exist
> anywhere across the match for
>
>
> Is this correct?
>
Not
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl writes:
> +1.1 == 11/100# True
New math? :)
Eirik
--
O misbegotten pile of festering aardvark's fewmets! O vile unwashed ill-doer!
I blast you with the curse of the mad witch of Wickham! May every boychild
born to you , and to your sons, and to your sons
David Green writes:
> The soft way -- being able to cast $dogwood as a Dog and treat it
> unambiguously so, then to do the same thing treating it as a Tree
> object -- is the most flexible. Split-personality Dogs may be rare,
> but I can imagine wanting to call common utility roles (e.g. Loggin
Michael Zedeler writes:
> Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> Jon Lang wrote:
>>
>>> How do pred and succ work when given Complex values?
>>>
>> By adding/substracting 1 from the real part, I'd say. Don't know if that
>> actually makes sense.
>>
> It doesn't, because succ should always give the next
Moritz Lenz writes:
> In all other cases of quote like constructs are the semantics are
> explicit first (think of Q, qx, m, <, «), the delimiter comes later.
> Changing that all of a sudden seems very unintuitive and wrong.
Thing is, comments are not quote-like. All of the quote-like
constru
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl writes:
> statement, or if you want to attach multiple statements. you must either
> use the curly form or surround the entire expression in brackets of some
> sort:
>
> -@primes = (do (do $_ if .prime) for 1..100);
> +@primes = do $_ if prime($_) for 1..
jason switzer writes:
> [warning: light-hearted humor ahead]
> There's also the notion that perl6's scope has creeped to accommodate a
> large enough set of ideas. Seems like an appropriate logo:
>
> http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&q=kitchen+sink
I kinda liked that one – back when
Martin D Kealey writes:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
>> Hmm. Ah, I can see why it's ambiguous. For those who missed it, think of
>> what "instant" means in the context of "Instant coffee". I think I still
>> slightly prefer "instant", but I don't mind much any more :).
>
>
Jon Lang writes:
> So "$a -<=> $b" is equivalent to "$b <=> $a", not "-($a <=> $b)". OK.
> I'd suggest choosing a better character for the meta-operator (one
> that conveys the meaning of reversal of order rather than opposite
> value); but I don't think that there is one.
A transposition of
"jerry gay" writes:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 13:16, Eirik Berg Hanssen
> wrote:
>> That doesn't look very "eager" to me.
>>
> it's "eager" for the match to close, which is the opposite of "greedy"
> matching. in perl 5
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl writes:
> +C<--prelude=Perl6-autoloop-no-print>. Since eager matching is used, if you
> +need to pass something like:
>
> + ++foo -bar ++foo baz ++/foo ++/foo
>
> +you'll end up with
> +
> + %+OPTS = '-bar ++foo baz';
That doesn't look very "eager" to me.
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, so let's look at the general problem. The structure is this:
>
> doSomething();
> while (someCondition())
> {
> doSomethingElse();
> doSomething();
> }
>
> ...and you want to factor out the doSomething() call so that it only
> has to be spe
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:37:41PM +0200, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> :
> : > -C<< infix: >>, sequential junctional and operator
> : > +C<< infix: >>, sequential junctio
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> -C<< infix: >>, sequential junctional and operator
> +C<< infix: >>, sequential junctional and operator
>
> -EXPR where EXPR where EXPR ...
> +EXPR also EXPR also EXPR ...
>
> Can be used to construct ANDed patterns with the same semantics as
> C<< infix:<
One more data point?
I might want a newline or I might want an ORS. The former, say()
gives me. The latter, print() provides.
I cannot imagine ever wanting a mixture of those, and if I ever do,
I expect I'll prefer to say what I mean:
# modulo syntax:
{ temp ORS //= "\n"; print @args
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:56 (+1000):
>>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
>>$propped = [but] $value, @properties;
>
> With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
> are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder now if that can just be
>
> my $password = any('a'..'z') x 5;
Wouldn't that generate a junction, and so need a .pick?
my $password = (any('a'..'z') x 5).pick;
Or perhaps just leave it a junction, to use as a generator:
my $any_passw
Eirik Berg Hanssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
>>
>>>Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>$re1 = /^ <-[x]>* x <-[x]>* $/; # match a st
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
>
>>Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>>$re1 = /^ <-[x]>* x <-[x]>* $/; # match a string with exactly one
>>>'x' in it.
&
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> $re1 = /^ <-[x]>* x <-[x]>* $/; # match a string with exactly one
> 'x' in it.
> $re2 = /^ <-[y]>* y <-[y]>* $/; # ditto 'y'
> $re3 = /^ <-[z]>* z <-[z]>* $/; # ditto 'z'
> $re7 = none($re1, $re2, $re3); # matches if there are 0 or 2+ of
Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
>> Particularly focus on:
>>
>> 2..sqrt($x)
>>
>> What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junctio
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:17:35PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>> >none($a, $a) == undef
>>
>> True.
>
> Isn't this one false in the case when $a is undef?
Since it is numerical comparison, it is false as long as $a == 0.
(I would hope.)
Eiri
Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 11:10:13AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> No, consider
>>
>> $a = 1;
>> $b = 2;
>>
>> one($a, $a, $b) # false
>> one($b) # true
>
> Right. Evidently I need to sleep real soon. :-)
>
> However, is
Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rod Adams wrote:
>> Does
>> ($k, $v) <== pop %hash;
>> or
>> ($k, $v) <== %hash.pop;
>> make sense to anyone except me?
>
> Makes sense to me. Although I would be more inclined to think of pop
> as returning a pair - but does a pair in list context turn
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> : What happens when the Pascal programmer declares
> :
> : my int @ints is shape(-10..10);
> :
> : Does it blow up?
>
> No.
>
> : If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:05:25PM +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
> : I for one would appreciate the visual clue that we access properties
> : and subclasses as roles ($foo~~bareword), while we access attributes
> : (with acc
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:18:19PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : Larry Wall writes:
> : > Anyway, this all implies that use of a role as a method name defaults to
> : > returning whether the type in question matches the subtype.
Why? Why should it be a
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Cool stuff. In my usual pedantic sort of way, I'll go through the
> message and fix everything you said. For educational purposes only, of
> course :-)
Thanks :-)
For further education, some more questions/comments, if I may:
> # Let's say C
"Austin Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Eirik wrote:]
> > Let us see ... somewhat speculative and probably short-of-the-mark
> > generalization coming up:
> >
> >
> > macro infix:[ ($lhs, $op, $rhs)
> > is parsed(/() \] ()/) {
> > return {
> > $op($lhs, $rhs)
> > };
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm, since we're requiring no whitespace between a variable and it's
> subscript, this should be possible:
>
> if "Dough" [eqn 4] "Douglas" {...}
Lisp! :-)
Well, almost. Now this would be lisp-y:
if $test [$moon.is_waxing ? &infix:< : &infi
31 matches
Mail list logo
