Leon Timmermans wrote:
> I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map
> should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write.
> That would make at least one bad practice an error.
That sounds very impractical, because the ro/rw distinction is part of
the sign
Leon Timmermans wrote:
> I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map
> should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write.
> That would make at least one bad practice an error.
That sounds very impractical, because the ro/rw distinction is part of
the sign
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map
> should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write.
> That would make at least one bad practice an error.
Why is r/w map a bad practice if r/w for is no
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Yes, the only difference between C and C is that you can
> only use C at the start of a statement. But we're more liberal
> about where statements are expected in Perl 6, so you can say things
> like:
>
> my @results = do for @list -> $x
Em Seg, 2009-03-09 às 12:24 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:40:43PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> : ... $capture ~~ $signature ...;
> : my $args_matched = @($/).elems;
> : &code.(|$/);
> That API still would not tell the match whether signature must match the
> entire
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:46:51PM +1300, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: I'd like to be able to use grep, map, etc in a currying fashion. Can I do:
:
: my &square_list := -> $x { $x * $x }.map();
my &square_list := &map.assuming(-> $x { $x * $x});
: And if so, what is the signature of &squar
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Larry Wall wrote:
> the only difference between C and C is that you can only use
> C at the start of a statement. But we're more liberal about where
> statements are expected in Perl 6, so you can say things like:
>
> my @results = do for @list -> $x {...};
> my @resul
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:38:29AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:31:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: > : But both pugs and rakudo respect the arity of the code ref passed to it,
: > : so that (1..6).map(
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:40:43PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: Em Dom, 2009-03-08 às 21:31 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu:
: > I think the basic rule has to be simply can the signature bind to
: > the remaining arguments. If not, we get a warning on unused arguments.
:
: Just to put here an idea I s
Em Dom, 2009-03-08 às 21:31 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu:
> I think the basic rule has to be simply can the signature bind to
> the remaining arguments. If not, we get a warning on unused arguments.
Just to put here an idea I sent on irc...
What if Signature.ACCEPTS set $/ with the matched argumen
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:31:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> : But both pugs and rakudo respect the arity of the code ref passed to it,
> : so that (1..6).map({$^a + $^b + $^c}) returns the list (6, 15), which is
> : very nice and very
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: Currently the spec says:
:
: C returns a lazily evaluated list which is comprised of
: the return value of the expression, evaluated once for every
: one of the C<@values> that are passed in.
:
: But both pugs and rakudo respect th
Currently the spec says:
C returns a lazily evaluated list which is comprised of
the return value of the expression, evaluated once for every
one of the C<@values> that are passed in.
But both pugs and rakudo respect the arity of the code ref passed to it,
so that (1..6).map({$^a + $^b + $^c})
13 matches
Mail list logo
