On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:24:14PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Yeah, "is lazy" should be fine for now. The feature is definitely
: there, but it might end up being called something different. "is
: braceless"?
I think "is braceless" is better, if only because it's longer.
Though I still suspect
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:06:32AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Aaron Sherman writes:
: > On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:37 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: >
: > > We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
: > >
: > > sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
: > [...]
: >
On 5/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyway, "for" doesn't need "is lazy", because it simply evaluates the
> list it is given and iterates over it. The fact that evaluating the
> list may be a no-op because of laziness is unrelated to "is lazy"
> (another hint that it's the wrong na
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-01 1:17 (-0600):
> > Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
> > since I'm implementing statement:, not statement:.
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. How would the same "is lazy" thing be
> useful with "for", given this ex
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-01 1:17 (-0600):
> Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
> since I'm implementing statement:, not statement:.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. How would the same "is lazy" thing be
useful with "for", given this example?
Juerd
--
http://
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-04-26 9:37 (-0600):
> > sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
>
> How does that handle
>
> for { closure }, { closure } -> { ... }
>
> and why? :)
Umm... maybe I'm totally misunderstanding you, but I think it doesn't,
since I'm implementing s
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-04-26 9:37 (-0600):
> sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
How does that handle
for { closure }, { closure } -> { ... }
and why? :)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gaji
Autrijus Tang writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:37:51AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Joshua Gatcomb writes:
> > > The solution is formal parameters. The trouble is I
> > > can't seem to find a good example in S04 that matches
> > > what I am trying to do.
> > >
> > > while $ref() -> @array {
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 09:37:51AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Joshua Gatcomb writes:
> > The solution is formal parameters. The trouble is I
> > can't seem to find a good example in S04 that matches
> > what I am trying to do.
> >
> > while $ref() -> @array { ... }
>
> We're thinking at the mom
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:37 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
> >
> > sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
> [...]
>
> Just curious, why a sub and not a macro?
Didn't need a macro. statement:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:37 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
>
> sub statement: (&cond is lazy, &block) {
[...]
Just curious, why a sub and not a macro?
> That does pose a problem with:
>
> given $foo {
> until
All:
Please forgive me, but I have only recently started
following the language side of p6 after spending a
fair amount of time with Parrot. Last night I
installed Pugs and wrote my first p6 code:
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=451398
Reading S04, it seems that there are no implicit
block
Joshua Gatcomb writes:
> The solution is formal parameters. The trouble is I
> can't seem to find a good example in S04 that matches
> what I am trying to do.
>
> while $ref() -> @array { ... }
We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
sub statement: (&cond is
All:
Please forgive me, but I have only recently started
following the language side of p6 after spending a
fair amount of time with Parrot. Last night I
installed Pugs and wrote my first p6 code:
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=451398
Reading S04, it seems that there are no implicit
blo
14 matches
Mail list logo
