On Saturday, November 16, 2002, at 04:52 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
if $moe|$larry|$curly == $hurt {...} # i.e. any of them hurt
and:
if $moe|$larry|$curly != $hurt {...} # at least one not hurt
and also between:
if $moe&$larry&$curly == $hurt {...} # all hurt
and:
if $moe&$
Brent Dax wrote:
More simply, !($x == 4) is no longer exactly equivalent to ($x != 4).
Correct. Junctive algebra and logic is slightly different. yet another
reason not to allow junctions to seep into subroutines by default.
Actually, this suggests to me a flaw in the != operator, not a flaw
Luke Palmer wrote:
sub foo($x) {
if ($x != 4) {
print "Not four\n";
}
if ($x == 4) {
print "Four\n";
}
}
sub oof($x) {
if ($x != 4) {
print "Not four\n";
}
else {
print "Four\n";
}
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
Luke wrote:
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
want from junctions?
Perhaps the above should just print JUNCTION(0x1234) or something
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Luke Palmer asked:
>
>> When junctions collapse,
>
> Sigh, not another one of those dreadful reality TV shows:
>
> When animals attack
> When drivers collide
> When junctions collapse
>
> Next we'll get:
>
> When mailing lists exp
Luke Palmer asked:
When junctions collapse,
Sigh, not another one of those dreadful reality TV shows:
When animals attack
When drivers collide
When junctions collapse
Next we'll get:
When mailing lists explode
When threads perpetuate
When Piers summarize
When Larrys make puns
;-)
Luke Palmer:
# sub foo($x) {
# if ($x != 4) {
# print "Not four\n";
# }
# if ($x == 4) {
# print "Four\n";
# }
# }
# sub oof($x) {
# if ($x != 4) {
# print "Not four\n";
# }
# else {
#
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> From: Deborah Ariel Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:05:16 +1100 (EST)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Luke wrote:
> > When junctions collapse, is that reflecte
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>
> > $foo = 1 | 2 | 4
> > print $foo;
> > # Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
>
> Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
> want from junctions?
>
> Perhaps the above should just print JUNCT
Luke wrote:
> When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
> junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
>
> $foo = 1 | 2 | 4
> print $foo;
> # Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
> [...]
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we sti
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
If so, what is perl going to do about the computationally expensive
entanglement thingy?
$x =
11 matches
Mail list logo
