On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 05:03 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
>>
>> Uh-oh: my life is gonna suck. I've spent days hunting obscure bugs
>> that were caused by a single mistyped character. Now I'll be spending
>> days hunting obsc
Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
> Maybe we should ... to mean "and so on forever":
>
> @a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
>
> Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
> might be handier in real life.
No more yada-yada-yada?
Brad
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I've always wondered what the ! postfix operator means. The mathematicians
> think they know. :-)
The Ruby folks think they know. They're method name conventions.
>From "Programming Ruby"
Methods that act as queries are often
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> Uh-oh: my life is gonna suck. I've spent days hunting obscure bugs
> that were caused by a single mistyped character. Now I'll be spending
> days hunting obscure bugs that were caused by a single *pixel*.
>
I've already been the
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brad Hughes wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: [...]
: > Maybe we should ... to mean "and so on forever":
: >
: > @a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
: >
: > Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
: > might be handier in real life.
:
: No more yada-yada-y
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
> might be handier in real life. (It means to exclude the endpoint,
> so 0...4 is the same as 0..3. But then, that's kind of odd too.)
Uh-oh: my life is gonna s
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:35:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> : On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : Would that mean that three other special cases of postfix .. might exist?
> :
> : 0..; # useful for return 0..;
>
> I bet
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Larry Wall writes:
> If only we had Unicode editors, we could just force everyone to use
> the infinity symbol where they mean it. It seems a shame to make a
> special case of the .. operator. Maybe we should ... to mean "and so
> on forever":
>
> @a[0...;
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
: > and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
: > term (which is how we recogni
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
> and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
> term (which is how we recognize prefix operators). The one exception I can
> t
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
: context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
: '_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
: anyone come up with a use
Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
'_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
anyone come up with a use for binary '?' yet?
Joe Gottman
> - Ori
12 matches
Mail list logo
