HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
The number of "summands" might be also unknown. i.e.: map.
when you have
my @a <== map { ... } <== something()
you can't really know how many elements you have in the first
dimension...
Hmm, I thought that all lists know their length, and if not
they advertise I
TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> That being said, we should note that this example looks simple because
>> we have almost no lazyness implied (since there's an assignment in the
>> first line), every list access requires the evaluation of the flatenning
>> of the list.
>>
>> my @@
I think I'm fine with making them separate. Recursive lazy flattening
seems too evil; slice and list contexts should not try to do the work of
captures. Thanks.
Larry
Em Ter, 2008-12-16 às 18:47 +0100, TSa escreveu:
> > # the following will require a flatenning to get the actual index
> > say @a[3];
> Could we not shift the problem into a more complicated form
> of the size of the array? Here it has size 0+3+0 but each of the
> summands could be lazy and hen
HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
That being said, we should note that this example looks simple because
we have almost no lazyness implied (since there's an assignment in the
first line), every list access requires the evaluation of the flatenning
of the list.
my @@a = ((),(1,2,3),());
Mustn't th
Hi,
One of the hardest features in Perl 6 is the slice context. It is
undoubtfully usefull, since it provides semantics to acces each
iteration of a map, for instance.
But there's one thing in the spec that makes not only slices, but the
lists themselves considerably harder to implement, and that
