On 10/10/01 7:27 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:20:49 -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>>
>>> So, in the
operator, the filter is the adverb:
>>>
>>>$sum =
@costs : {$^_ < 1000};
>>
>> WTF is that operator? All I see is a black bloc
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:20:49 -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>
> >So, in the
operator, the filter is the adverb:
> >
> >$sum =
@costs : {$^_ < 1000};
>
> WTF is that operator? All I see is a black block. We're not in ASCII any
> more, Toto...
I'm g
On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:20:49 -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>So, in the
operator, the filter is the adverb:
>
>$sum =
@costs : {$^_ < 1000};
WTF is that operator? All I see is a black block. We're not in ASCII any
more, Toto...
--
Bart.
> So, does that mean that, to keep C and
> Cnew($baz, $frob)> doing the same thing, the object will always
> come in before the colon?
Yes.
> Is unary . gonna refer to the "one and only"
> argument before the colon?
Yes.
> Cool.
Yes.
;-)
Damian
On 10/7/01 4:17 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Does that mean that in the built-in print, the file handle is the only
>> "in-band" argument, and all the actual items to be printed are merely
>> adverbs?
>
> Yep. Although the "in-band"/"out-of-band" distinction is only one of
> convention.
>
> In rea
Damian Conway:
#> So, in the
operator, the filter is the adverb:
#>
#> $sum =
@costs : {$^_ < 1000};
#>
#> Does that mean that in the built-in print, the file
# handle is the only
#> "in-band" argument, and all the actual items to be
# printed are merely
#> adve
>From EX3:
> A subroutine's adverbs are specified as part of its normal parameter list, but
> separated from its regular parameters by a colon:
>
> my sub operator:
is prec(\&operator:+($)) ( *@list : $filter //= undef)
> { ...
>
> This specifies that operator:
can take a single scalar adverb, w
