Re: Junctions as arguments (Pugs bug)

2006-12-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Jonathan Rockway wrote: : Ovid wrote: : (reversed the message a bit) : > is 'b', any('a' .. 'h'), 'junctions should work'; : : This looks like a Test "bug"; it's doing something like: : :is 'b', 'a' # not ok :is 'b', 'b' # ok :is 'b', 'c' #

Re: Junctions as arguments (Pugs bug)

2006-12-20 Thread Jonathan Rockway
Ovid wrote: (reversed the message a bit) > is 'b', any('a' .. 'h'), 'junctions should work'; This looks like a Test "bug"; it's doing something like: is 'b', 'a' # not ok is 'b', 'b' # ok is 'b', 'c' # not ok ... If you write: ok 'b' === any('a'..'h') The result is one passing

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote: : Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence. That depends on whether you mean ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).words or ~(@array.words) It happens to mean the latter. A . binds tighter than a symbolic unary

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Juerd
wolverian skribis 2005-04-05 19:31 (+0300): > Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence. Yes, . is supertight. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread wolverian
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:21:41AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Plus you really don't want to clutter the Str type with every little > thing you might want to do with a string. "foo".open() will probably > work, but only because it doesn't find a Str.open and fails over to > MMD dispatch, which ends

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:36:18AM +0300, wolverian wrote: : (Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.) : : On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : > (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably : > afford to throw a few more convenience functions

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread Adriano Ferreira
> Shouldn't these be just methods? I guess not. This is Perl and OO is not mandatory, or even desirable all the time. Adriano.

Re: Pugs Bug

2005-04-05 Thread wolverian
(Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.) On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably > afford to throw a few more convenience functions out there for common > operations like word splitting and whitespace