On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 12:17 -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> At this point, you may as well use C<.records> (think C<$/> -- record
> separator):
>
>for $foo.records { ... }
>
> Then it'd be a small step to allow:
>
>for $foo.records :sep"," { ... }
> --or--
>for $foo.r
On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 12:10 -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Half of all numbers in [0, Inf) are in the range [Inf/2, Inf). Which
> > collapses to the range [Inf, Inf).
>
> It's not that simple. By that reasoning, 10% of all numbers in
word 'union'
Right?
Peter Behroozi
gives meaning to things like
"$force is aka(@override)" because aliases would not have to be known at
compile-time.
Then again, if you have good reasons for the other syntax, I would be
more than happy to hear those as well.
Peter Behroozi
iminating weird things like "$force is aka(@override)"), the
problem of argument order in normal sub calls goes away, and there is a
happy minimum of extra syntax.
By the way, thanks for pointing out the original discussion; I haven't
been on the list long enough to have known that it existed.
Peter Behroozi
$override:=int $force) { ... }
I have doubts about that last one, since I suspect that people will want
to know what
$force = "dp/dt";
sub work ($distance, $push:=$force) { ... }
is supposed to do, but these are only suggestions. Anyone else want to
shed light on the matter?
Thanks
On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 14:31, Brent Dax wrote:
> Peter Behroozi:
> # After reading over Apocalypse 5 one more time, I noticed that
> # balanced matches (like capturing nested parenthetical
> # comments ((like this))) had been glossed over in the
> # rejection of RFC 145. Wh
is something that
should be more deeply tied to the Regex Engine), but I am proposing that
it can simultaneously be very useful and still look nice. Isn't that
justification enough?
Comments are appreciated,
Peter Behroozi
