Fwd from Luke -- he's adopted a retarded MUA.
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:22:05 -0600
> From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Perl 6's for() signature
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > And yo
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it's possible to have two routines with the same name which
> differ by signature... however, in Perl 6, C has only one
> signature, and it's the one above. The C loop you are thinking
> of is spelled C,
Oh, yes, forgot about that.
> To the cont
John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
> Perl 6 code...
A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a while loop. In general,
where foo, bar, baz, and quux
> Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
> >
> > John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> > > EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
> > > Perl 6 code...
> >
> > A for loop[1] is basically syntax
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Actually, in Perl 6, they'll do that anyway. Scope in loops is
> > > strictly defined by the location of the braces WRT the location of
Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
>
> John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> > EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
> > Perl 6 code...
>
> A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a whi
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Actually, in Perl 6, they'll do that anyway. Scope in loops is
> strictly defined by the location of the braces WRT the location of
> "my". That is:
>
> while (my $x = somefunc()) { ... }
> # $x still in scope
"Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is another problem beyond efficiency: the P6 list semantics is lazy.
>
> The following is valid P6, AFAIK:
>
> for 1 .. Inf {
> print $_;
> last when 10;
> }
Yeah, but that's a foreach loop, despite the fact that "foreach" is
spelled
> "Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There is another problem beyond efficiency: the P6 list semantics is lazy.
> >
> > The following is valid P6, AFAIK:
> >
> > for 1 .. Inf {
> > print $_;
> > last when 10;
> > }
>
> Yeah, but that's a foreach loop, despite the fact th
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:01:15PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
: > The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
: > may need to be a special case for allowing a single &block parameter after
: > the slurpy
:
: And the Rubyome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
> may need to be a special case for allowing a single &block parameter after
> the slurpy
And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches...
(Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz
FWIW, we're aware of the problem.
I posed this very question to Larry a few months back, when I was writing E6.
We're still mulling over the correct answer. The last thought on the problem
that Larry's shared with me was that there may need to be a special case for
allowing a single &block param
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
>
> > Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> > are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
> > left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
> >
> > Yes, it's more expensive to use, just li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
> Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
> left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
>
> Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE vers
John Siracusa:
> Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in Perl 6
> code...
Well, the easiest signature to do is probably:
sub for([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
PRE { @list.end =~ Code }
...
- Original Message -
From: "Hanson, Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Rod Adams'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Perl 6 Language"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: Perl 6's for() signature
&
> Anyone but me feel the need for non-greedy slurpy arrays? similar to
> non-greedy RE matches?
> Then we could do:
>
> sub for ([EMAIL PROTECTED], &block) {...}
>
> Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts
hing by slurping
everything, then poping the block off of the array?
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Rod Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:56 PM
To: Perl 6 Language
Subject: Re: Perl 6's for() signature
At 10:05 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
about.
-- Rod
Rob
-Original Message-
From: Rod Adams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:56 PM
To: Perl 6 Language
Subject: Re: Perl 6's for() signature
At 10:05 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. Th
> At 10:05 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. There's a flattening
> >list context at the beginning (implying a sugary drink from 7 eleven),
> >followed by a code block. But, as we know, slurpy arrays can only
> >come at the end of positional pa
At 10:05 AM 7/31/2003 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. There's a flattening
list context at the beginning (implying a sugary drink from 7 eleven),
followed by a code block. But, as we know, slurpy arrays can only
come at the end of positional parameters.
Anyo
On Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 12:05 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, I don't think it's possible, actually. There's a flattening
list context at the beginning (implying a sugary drink from 7 eleven),
followed by a code block. But, as we know, slurpy arrays can only
come at the end of positional para
> From an old summary:
>
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/04/p6pdigest/20030427.html?page=2
>
> > Paul Hodges took a crack at implementing for as a subroutine and came
> up with
> > something that didn't look too insane. Luke Palmer added a refinement
> allowing
> > for n at a time looping.
23 matches
Mail list logo
