Brad Bowman wrote:
>
> Both Data::Dumper and Storable provide hooks to customize serialization
> ($Data::Dumper::Freezer|Toaster, STORABLE_freeze|_thaw).
> Other modules like YAML and Clone could also possibly reuse a
> common state marshalling interface.
>
> Is there some common element to this
Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Ok, I dkimmed through the synopses again and didn't see this offhand.
>
> If I have two arrays @a and @b and I wish to create a two-element list
> out of them - a la Perl5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) - what's the
> correct way to do
> that in Perl6? If it's stil
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Putting aside legacy issues for the moment,
>
> I suggest that it might be appropriate to rename the .grep list operator
> to .where, so we can say, for example:
>
> @filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
>
> We already have a "where" keyword in the language, whi
Hello,
As I've worked on smart linking, I've found some gaps in the spec, often
of the variety of "obvious" parts that should largely work the same as
Perl 5. For example, "say" was formally spec'ed until recently, or
"print" for that matter.
I have a suggestion which I believe make the docs mo
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> I'm trying to decide if
>
>sub ($self: $just_a_named_param)
>
> can meaningfully put anything into $self. It seems doubtful, and it should
> probably be
>
>submethod ($self: $just_a_named_param)
I agree. If
sub ($self: $foo)
works than it reduces privacy, sinc
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> The formal definition of "Inf" appears to be missing from the spec
> documents. Since I'm not exactly sure how Perl 6 treats "Inf", I'll
> leave submitting this patch to someone else.
>
> Once the spec is added, a smart link
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> The formal definition of "Inf" appears to be missing from the spec
> documents. Since I'm not exactly sure how Perl 6 treats "Inf", I'll
> leave submitting this patch to someone else.
>
> Once the spec is added, a smart link
The formal definition of "Inf" appears to be missing from the spec
documents. Since I'm not exactly sure how Perl 6 treats "Inf", I'll
leave submitting this patch to someone else.
Once the spec is added, a smart link to it should be added from:
t/builtins/math/infinity.t
Mark
I'll hold up some error handling in CGI::Application as "use case" some
for some CATCH spec refinements. The Perl 5 code is below for reference.
First, we handle the exception conditionally based /not/ on the
exception itself, but whether we have an exception handle installed
to deal with it. Is i
Trey Harris wrote:
> markstos++ pointed out the following behavior:
>
> use v6-alpha;
>
> {
> when 1 ~~ 0 {
> say "Surprise!"
> }
> }
>
> This code prints "Surprise!", because $_ is undef, which is false, just
> like 1 ~~ 0 is.
>
> I'd like to make the following suggestions
I found 6 references to "gather" in Perl6/Spec/*, but none of them were
a formal definition.
It would great if an official entry for gather/take could be added.
Mark
Brad Bowman wrote:
> Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> In the Objects chapter, a WALK pseudo-class is spec'ed for using
>> when calling sets of methods:
>>
>> http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S12.html#Calling_sets_of_methods
>>
>> These are the arguments listed that
In the Objects chapter, a WALK pseudo-class is spec'ed for using
when calling sets of methods:
http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S12.html#Calling_sets_of_methods
These are the arguments listed that can be used with WALK:
:canonical # canonical dispatch order
:ascendant # most-deri
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> S12 describes a feature to call sets of methods at the same time:
>
> http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S12.html#Calling_sets_of_methods
>
> I would like the spec to clarify what happens to the return values of
> all these methods.
>
> I'm fine
Luke Palmer wrote:
> I don't follow your examples. What is the logic behind them?
>
> On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Examples:
>>Arguments (<1 2>) to signatures 1. (@a?) and 2. (@a) calls 2
>
> For example, I would ex
S12 describes a feature to call sets of methods at the same time:
http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S12.html#Calling_sets_of_methods
I would like the spec to clarify what happens to the return values of
all these methods.
I'm fine with a simple answer, such as that they are not available, or
only th
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it would helpful if the spec addressed "who wins" in MMD when
> optional arguments are present.
>
> I just submitted these failing tests for pugs which illustrate the
> issue.
>
> not ok 11 - Arguments (a => '
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it would helpful if the spec addressed "who wins" in MMD when
> optional arguments are present.
>
> I just submitted these failing tests for pugs which illustrate the
> issue.
>
> not ok 11 - Arguments (a => '
Hello,
I think it would helpful if the spec addressed "who wins" in MMD when
optional arguments are present.
I just submitted these failing tests for pugs which illustrate the
issue.
not ok 11 - Arguments (a => 'b') to signatures 1. () and 2. (*%h) calls 2
not ok 14 - Arguments () to signatures
Mark Stosberg wrote:
>
> &::($meth)(self:);
Well, audreyt just made this work (r12960), which I what I what
I thought should work in the first place:
self.$meth().
So I'm happy. (But my curiosity about the spec for symbolic refs and OO
still stands. )
Mark
In reading about symbolic references, I didn't find any specific
language that mentioned using them in conjunction with methods or OO. I
would like to see specific language and examples added to the spec to
clarify this.
Here's a specific example which currently doesn't work in pugs.
It's attempti
Agent Zhang wrote:
>
> According to S04, given {} is at statement level, so you can't use it
> directly as an expression. But Perl 6 always allow you to say
>
> my $foo = do given {...}
>
> As well as
>
> my $foo = do if foo {...} else {...}
I confirmed this both work now with pugs!
I thin
Sometimes I use 'given' blocks to set a value. To save repeating myself
on the right hand side of the given block, I found I kept want to do this:
my $foo = given { }
...and have whatever value that was returned from when {} or default {}
populate $foo.
It turns out pugs already allow this, thr
Trey Harris wrote:
>
>
> Slurpy parameters follow any required or optional parameters. They are
> marked by a C<*> before the parameter:
>
> sub duplicate($n, *%flag, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
>
> Named arguments are bound to the slurpy hash (C<*%flag>
> in the above example). Such
Regarding The S06 description of named arguments:
http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S06.html#Named_arguments
What I find missing here is documentation of the signature to use
if you want to declare "I accept an arbitrary number of named
arguments". (Like the param() methods common in Perl5 do).
Maybe
I'm interested in helping to write some tests for "return types", but
I'd like some clarifications about them first. Are they just
"declarations" that help Perl optimize stuff, or they actually contracts?
As this little script shows, both "inner" and "of" are valid syntax now
with pugs, but neithe
Perl6::Spec::Documentation is a draft spec for documentation formats for
use with Perl6.
My own reading of it is that POD still exists and is supported, while a
new wiki-like format "kwid" is added, and a framework for various
dialects is supported.
POD was successful for its simplicity. It was
I noticed in pugs, 'ref' does not return 'HASH' and 'ARRAY' as Perl5
does, but returns values including 'Hash', 'Array' and 'Array::Const'.
I don't find meaningful mentions of 'HASH' and 'ARRAY' by grep'ing
docs/Perl6 (or even "ref"!), so I wanted to check in here about the
meaningfulness of this
In S12, we see a number examples of:
class Dog is Mammal
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S12.html
However, it's not clear if it is necessary to preload Mammal for Dog
to function properly here, or what that syntax would be.
Testing with current version of pugs, this doesn't happen.
In Perl6/Spec/Operator.pod
"Trinary" should be "Ternary".
Mark
30 matches
Mail list logo
