HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
It's also possible I'm just nuts, and slice context should be a purely
run-time activity.
Reading your explanation of array slice context I missed an
answer to the question how the shape of an array is split
into the contexts of functions called inside .[]. I guess
the
On Apr 6, 2008, at 12:07 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
and think you've gotten anywhere, since you'd then have to rewrite it
again:
$foo.postcircumfix:<( )>.postcircumfix:<( )>.($bar)
$foo.postcircumfix:<( )>.postcircumfix:<( )>.postcircumfix:<(
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
I only mean that you can't simply rewrite
$foo.($bar)
as
$foo.postcircumfix:<( )>.($bar)
and think you've gotten anywhere, since you'd then have to rewrite it
again:
$foo.postcircumfix:<( )>.postcircumfix:<( )>.($bar)
$foo.postcirc
On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 01:41:02PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
>> : In "Question on your last change to S02", Larry Wall wrote:
>> : > (By the way, you'll note the utility of being able to
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: In "Question on your last change to S02", Larry Wall wrote:
: > (By the way, you'll note the utility of being able to talk about a
: > postfix by saying .[], which is one of the reasons we a
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: In "Question on your last change to S02", Larry Wall wrote:
: > (By the way, you'll note the utility of being able to talk about a
: > postfix by saying .[], which is one of the reasons we allow the optional
: > dot there. :)
:
: Can I
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:47:26AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> If it wasn't the factorial operator, our math caucus would
> be rather unhappy...
Good, good. :)
$$y = \pi + 4 x $$, "Just another Perl and \TeX\ hacker";
--
Momomoto, Famous Japanese, can swallow his nose.
Simon Cozens wrote:
> If postfix "!" was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
> you do with it?
If it wasn't the factorial operator, our math caucus would
be rather unhappy...
--
John Porter
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:57:50 +0200, Davíð Helgason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:22:54 +0100, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If postfix "!" was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
> > > you do with it?
> > >
> >
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:22:54 +0100, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If postfix "!" was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
> you do with it?
>
> One interesting suggestion was to have it as a shorthand for assertion:
>
> sub foo {
> (@_ > 0)!;
> ...
> }
>
> (Or
10 matches
Mail list logo
