At Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:08:00 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> : If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1 or the last element?
>
> The element with index -1. Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the
>
At Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:23:04 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
> I would think you actually want to be able to define grep, map, et al.
> in terms of the mechanism for unraveling, and just let the optimizer
> collapse the entire pipeline down to a single map.
Even for map and grep th
At Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:23:04 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
> I would think you actually want to be able to define grep, map, et al.
> in terms of the mechanism for unraveling, and just let the optimizer
> collapse the entire pipeline down to a single map.
Even for map and grep th
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:51:00 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
> > > So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> > >
> > > uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
> >
> > Well if the long name is the problem:
> >
> >
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
> I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
> about proposing something like:
>
> sub foo (
> Foo::Bar$bar,
> Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
> +$verbose,
> +$foo
> ) des
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rafael Garcia-Suarez) writes:
> Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>> * To really show where P6 rocks, you need to show dynamic features. A
>> simple example might be using a language with keywords kept in
>> variables, allowing you change between e.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aldo Calpini) writes:
> I'm preparing a talk about Perl6 for the Italian Perl Workshop, and I
> would like to have a slide comparing a BNF (yacc/bison) grammar to a
> Perl6 one, to show how powerful in parsing/lexing Perl6 regexen are.
> ...
> am I missing something obvious here?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> Sean O'Rourke skribis 2004-04-19 15:11 (-0700):
>> > I'd hate to give up dividing slash. It's one of the few operators that I
>> > sometimes type without whitespace. Simple because 1/10 is good enough
>> > and 1 /
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> Angel Faus skribis 2004-04-19 22:43 (+0200):
>> If we really need a ultra-huffman encoding for hash subscriptors, I
>> have always dreamt of being able to do:
>> %hash/key
>> $hashref/foo/bar/baz/quux
>> ...
>
> I'd hate to give up dividing slash. It's on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> I think it has to go because `pwd`, `hostname`, `wget -O - $url`
> should not be easier than the purer Perl equivalents and because
> ``'s interpolation does more harm than good.
I have to disagree with you here. The Perl way is not always the Perl
way -- the b
S3 says:
1|2 + 3&4; # (4|5) & (5|6)
but shouldn't that equal
(1 + (3&4)) | (2 + (3&4))
= (4&5) | (5&6)
= (4|6) & 5 # ???
For one thing, OR's of AND's (DNF) is just nicer than AND's of OR's
(CNF). For another, I read th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> What does C do?
That's the operator that's used to assign values to C<$^x> and
friends in closures. In all its glory, you give it a set of values,
and it assigns them to a block's undefined variables, quieting those
annoying warnings:
@x = 1..10;
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gordon Henriksen writes:
>> my $ref = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>> $$ref = "value";
>> print '@ary[0] : ', @ary[0], "\n"; # -> @ary[0] : value
>
> That has to do with autovivification semantics. Particularly, do things
> autovivify when you take
On 19 Jul 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> [1] It would be totally cool to use a Haskell- or ML-style type
> inference system, but those things just don't work in procedural
> languages.
Could you clarify what you mean by "don't work" here? ML has both
assignment and type inference, so it seems like it
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > He's worried that the P6C tests
> > break,
>
> ... albeit this is still an issue. Nobody answered, if we need another
> Sub class implementing the old invoke/ret scheme ...
I'd say "no". P6C is now c
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003, Adam Turoff wrote:
> - roll-your-own inheritance mechanisms (see NEXT.pm)
On a related note, you might also want to take a look at CLOS (the Common
Lisp Object System) where it talks about method selection. They've got a
pretty clear and general model that describes every im
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Are you implying that
>
> $fred = rx/fred/;
> $string ~~ m:w/ <$fred> { $fred = rx/barney/; } rubble /
>
> won't match "barney rubble"?
Or, worse, that
$fred = rx/fred/;
$string ~~ m:w/ { $fred = rx/barney/; } <$fred> rub
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> and maybe also:
> What is the current plan?
>
> although I got the impression earlier that there isn't any yet for invoking
> subrules :-)
See line 1014, languages/perl6/P6C/rule.pm. The hack I used was to call
rules like ordinary subs, and have th
Argh. Please disregard that last message as the ramblings of a
pre-caffeinated mind.
/s
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > $var ??= 'succeeded' :: 'failed';
>
> Aha!
>
> $var && 'succeeded' || 'failed';
>
> Thank you, precedence.
>
> /s
>
>
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> $var ??= 'succeeded' :: 'failed';
Aha!
$var && 'succeeded' || 'failed';
Thank you, precedence.
/s
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> I'm done with 'P'. That's it. Putative planners of programming
> paradigms must proffer some prefix preferable to the pathetic
> palimpsest that is 'P'!
As with operators, so with programming languages -- Unicode comes not a
moment too soon.
/s
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> So 'if' and friends are just (native) subroutines with prototypes like:
>
>sub if (bool $c, Code $if_block) {...};
IIRC it's not that pretty, unfortunately, if you want to support this:
if $test1 {
# blah
} elsunless $test2 {
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2002, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > John Williams wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > If you want good'ol Unix flavor, call it "vrep". Compare the ed(1) /
> > ex(1) / vi(1) commands (where 're
On 5 Dec 2002, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> John Williams wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> If you want good'ol Unix flavor, call it "vrep". Compare the ed(1) /
> ex(1) / vi(1) commands (where 're' stands for regular expression, of
> course) :
> :g/re/p
> :v/re/p
Or, to follow the spirit r
See
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-internals@;perl.org/msg11308.html
for a closely-related discussion.
/s
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, David Whipp wrote:
> In Perl6, everything is an object. So almost everything is
> neither a number nor a string. It probably doesn't make sense
> to cast things to
Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
> perl6 operator precedence
>
>leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
>left. and unary .
>nonassoc++ --
>leftis but
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Is that sufficiently vague?
Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
broad side of that semantic barn...
Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
makes it hard to predict what will happen,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
> implementation at the moment.
Yes. I personally think it makes more sense, in a language that allows
in
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> The current thinking as of Zurich is that the "given" passes in
> separate from the ordinary parameters:
>
> sub ($a,$b,$c) is given($x) {...}
>
> That binds the dynamically surrounding $_ to $x as an out-of-band
> parameter. Can also bind to $_ to mak
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> But if a fast implementation needs to keep pointers into a string
> rather than offsets from the beginning, we're asking for core dumps if
> the string is modified out from under the pointers, or we have to
> adjust all known pointers any time the string ma
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Chuck Kulchar wrote:
> Also, how do these perl6 builtins in perl6 work with the current
> P6C/Builtins.pm? (also, why are some that are already defined in pure
> pasm/part of the parrot core redefined as perl6 code?)
For the moment, "they don't". Eventually, I expect there w
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
> How are we planning on dealing with this, or do the
> implementers consider it a non issue?
Well, to me this is a non-Yet issue, but a very real issue. I'm hoping
that when Perl 6 goes 1.0, the grammar will have seen a lot of testing,
and will be
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > Damian Conway:
> > # Neither. You need:
> > #
> > # $roundor7 = rx /<+[17]>/
> > #
> > # That is: the union of the two character classes.
> >
> > How can you be sure that is implemented as a character
>
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to "for"
> > (specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
> > In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
> > to justify not forcing p
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> Any subroutine/function like C that has a signature (parameter list)
> that ends in a C<&sub> argument can be parsed without the trailing
> semicolon. So C's signature is:
>
> sub if (bool $condition, &block);
>
> So the trailing semicolon isn't re
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
> (only 32bit numbers, modulo not fully working, no capturing regexps,
> )
Where does modulo break?
/s
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> Would it be better for the matching of (Jun|June) to be "undefined" and
> implementation-dependent? Or is it best to require "leftmost" semantics?
For an alternation spelled out explicitly in the pattern, it seems like
undefined matching would be co
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> No, it's right. But it doesn't break that. In the grammar, C-like
> languages include (something like):
>
> statement: expression ';'
> statement: if expression block
>
> So an if _statement_ terminates itself. The } on a line of its own is a
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Debbie Pickett asked:
> > > > (Offtopic: can I say:
> > > > $c = -> $xyz { mumble }
> > >
> > > Yes. Though you need a semicolon at the end unless its the last
> > >
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> because the rules and patterns are no longer regular, but if rx isn't a
> short form of regex, what is it a short form of?
It's a short form of "r$x" for some value of "$x" ;).
/s
to CVS, email me and I'll send you the duct tape I'm
using to hold it together now.
/s
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:00:27 -0400
From: Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sean O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> (Had an interesting typo there. I put => insteaqd of ->. I wonder
> how much trouble that sort of thing is gonna cause. Maybe pairs
> can be disallowed or warned about where a pointy sub might be
> expected.)
To add to the list of helpful warnings, I ran
t; On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
> >>> > "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > languages/perl6/README sort of hides it, but it does say that
> >>>"If you
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, I presume the (rather abysmal) perl 6 numbers
> include time to generate the assembly and assemble it--have you tried
> running the generated code by itself as a test? (At the moment, the
> assembler's rather slow)
It's mostly the
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
> > @solution = (^-@b + sqrt(@b^**2 ^+ 4^*@a^*@c) ) ^/ (2^*@a);
>
> That would not be very pretty, indeed. It would also not be very
> efficient. (BTW, its b**2 - 4ac, not + :)A more efficient, pretty,
On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> Deborah Ariel Pickett:
> # My perl5 sensibilities tell me that that's likely to cause a
> # problem when I want to do something like this:
> #
> # $hashref = { function_returning_hash() };
> #
> # because I won't get the function's return values put into a
It's time for my weekly post to this old thread. The grammar has
grown enough to deserve more than one file, and is starting to change
in new directions. For example, it's now Turing-complete, if you have
a Parrot engine and a bit of spare time. Call it a primitive "demo
version" of some of Per
On 8 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> caller with no args is the same as C (for certain values of
> 'the same as'), caller(0) already returns the current execution
> context.
You're right. I stand corrected.
> > If you can set a block's continuation at runtime, I think you should be
> > able
On 5 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 8:29 AM -0700 7/4/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> > >Sick. Anyways, I think it seems like a more natural way to do things than
> > >traditional call/cc. "$block.continuat
On 4 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 8:32 AM +0100 7/3/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >For true scariness, consider:
> > >
> > > $sub.current_continuation($new_continuation);
> > >
> > Some days you really, really scare me Piers...
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
> I don't know how the grammars are going, and I'm not fit to write one
> myself,
Hey, neither am I, but that hasn't stopped me from taking a stab or two,
figuring that through pain comes fitness. The attempt has certainly given
me a much better unders
51 matches
Mail list logo
