Damian Conway wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
This is my major point of the post. In my opinion, your example of:
# Print a list of substrings...
my $substring = substr("junctions", any(1..3), any(3..6));
say $substring.values();
Is a perfect example of a place where saying:
# Print a list of s
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> my %seen is shape(IO) of Bool; # %seen maps IO objects to boolean
values
DC> while get_next_input_stream() -> $in {
DC> next if %seen{$in};
DC> $text ~= slurp $in;
DC> %seen{$in} = 1;
DC
Rod Adams wrote:
This is my major point of the post. In my opinion, your example of:
# Print a list of substrings...
my $substring = substr("junctions", any(1..3), any(3..6));
say $substring.values();
Is a perfect example of a place where saying:
# Print a list of substrings...
my @s
Aldo Calpini wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
>@s = 'item' _ [EMAIL PROTECTED];
That's:
@s = 'item »_« @x;
(just checking that my unerstanding is correct, don't want to be
nitpicking :-)
assuming that you meant to prepend the string "item" to each element of
@x, isn't that:
@s = 'i
Damian Conway wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
> The purpose of a junction is to allow for performing several tests at a
> given time, with the testing code needing no knowledge of that
junctions
> are present. While a junction can represent several values at the same
> time, such notions as "hold" and "co
Juerd writes:
> Damian Conway skribis 2005-02-22 22:13 (+1100):
> > >@x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED]);
> > That's:
> > @x = ÂfuncÂ($a, @y);
> > But, y'know, this one almost convinces me. Especially when you consider:
> > sub func ($i, $j, $k) {...}
> > @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTEC
Damian Conway wrote:
>@s = 'item' _ [EMAIL PROTECTED];
That's:
@s = 'item »_« @x;
(just checking that my unerstanding is correct, don't want to be
nitpicking :-)
assuming that you meant to prepend the string "item" to each element of
@x, isn't that:
@s = 'item' »~« @x;
?
furthe
Juerd wrote:
Naievely, I'd expect
my @a = @b = 1..3;
»foo«(@a, @b)
to result in
foo(@a[0], @b[0]),
foo(@a[1], @b[1]),
foo(@a[2], @b[2]);
but
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
with the same arrays in
foo(@a[0], @b[0]),
foo(@a[0], @b[1]),
foo(@a[0], @b[2]),
Damian Conway skribis 2005-02-22 22:13 (+1100):
> >@x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED]);
> That's:
> @x = »func«($a, @y);
> But, y'know, this one almost convinces me. Especially when you consider:
> sub func ($i, $j, $k) {...}
> @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED], @z);
Naievely, I'd ex
Rod Adams wrote:
> The purpose of a junction is to allow for performing several tests at a
> given time, with the testing code needing no knowledge of that junctions
> are present. While a junction can represent several values at the same
> time, such notions as "hold" and "contain" should be avoid
Definitions
===
set (n) : A data container that can hold many elements simultaneously.
The order of elements in a set is meaningless. No two elements in a set
may hold the same value.
junction (n) : The combination of several independent values and an
explicit boolean predicate, to form an
11 matches
Mail list logo
