On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# 1 .. $a
# 1 .. $a : 2
# $a .. $b
# $a .. $b : 2
# $a .. $b : $c
# 1 .. 10 : $c
# 2.5 .. 10.0 : 0.5
To my knowledge, these are all fine.
Thanks, you're right. I was confusing the 'lazy' discussion with
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
# > I suspect that the prototype for '..' is like this:
#
# So the 'step' use of colon may _only_ be used in conjunction with a
# "ranged" list, e.g. C<..>, correct? In _any_ other context, it means
# something els
On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
I suspect that the prototype for '..' is like this:
So the 'step' use of colon may _only_ be used in conjunction with a
"ranged" list, e.g. C<..>, correct? In _any_ other context, it means
something else.
In looking at A3, I also
Michael Lazzaro:
# Here's something that I'm still confused about.
#
# We have:
#
# print STDOUT : $a;
Presumably you forgot the $ on that STDOUT.
# as indirect object syntax. The colon means "STDOUT is the
# object we're
# operating on." It works everywhere. We also have
#
# for
