Larry Wall wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >: Finally: when used as a statement modifier, is "given" considered to
: >: be conditional or looping? (Gut instinct: conditional.)
: >
: >Why does it have to be one or the other? It's just a topicalizer.
:
: One implication of repla
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:44:59PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >: Finally: when used as a statement modifier, is "given" considered to
: >: be conditional or looping? (Gut instinct: conditional.)
: >
: >Why does it have to be one or the other? It's just a topicalizer.
:
: O
Larry Wall wrote:
: Finally: when used as a statement modifier, is "given" considered to
: be conditional or looping? (Gut instinct: conditional.)
Why does it have to be one or the other? It's just a topicalizer.
One implication of replacing "statement_modifier" with
"statement_mod_cond" and
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:55:28PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: The text of S02, S03, and S04 still contain references to the
: now-defunct "statement_modifier" grammatical category.
Yes, there are several similar issues that need to be cleared up
as soon as http://svn.pugscode.org/pugs/src/perl6
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:01:48PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: The following is legal perl:
:
: print "$a $b $c" if ($a,$b,$c)=(1,2,3);
:
: This prints "1 2 3", but the definitions obviously aren't scoped to the
: modified statement. And a C in the modifier is a bit too late.
:
: Any reason to
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:53:23PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
How is a left-associative operator "less special" than a non-associative
one?
Ehm, most operators in perl are left-associative, so you probably mean R2L
short-circuiting but even then I'm not sure what you're trying to say here
And yo
> To save people from having to re-read the thread, here is the actual
> proposal in detail again:
>
> PROPOSAL
> Replace the 'if', 'unless', 'when' statement modifiers by identically
> named lowest-precedence left-associative operators that short-circuit
> from right to left.
>
> This
Simon Cozens:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
# > we have a definitive
# ^^
# Remember that this is Perl 6. You keep using that word, etc.
It *is* definitive, Simon...at least this week. ;^)
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regex
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> we have a definitive
^^
Remember that this is Perl 6. You keep using that word, etc.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, "bullet"); }
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:14:05PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
It is nice to see someone who puts as much thought into posting as you
do. Unfortunately, your proposal is moot, as we have a definitive
"No, still can't chain them" from Larry.
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/
> PROPOSAL
> Replace the 'if', 'unless', 'when' statement modifiers by identically
> named lowest-precedence left-associative operators that short-circuit
> from right to left.
>
> This means 'FOO if BAR' is identical to 'BAR and FOO', except it has a
> lower precedence, and 'FOO unle
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:28:41AM -0800, Paul wrote:
Agreed. But is it worth putting them in if they would make a problem so
easily, and it can be so easily handled with blocks?
I don't think they can make a problem so easily, and I think it's worth
putting them in because afaics it's not very co
> I made a mistake in my original post, they definitely need to be
> left-associative. Your example should obviously be interpreted as:
>
> (.method given $x) given $y; # calls $x.method
ok.
> I think this is similar to how I mentioned that a duplicate 'for' is
> pointless. Just because poi
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:20:39AM -0800, Paul wrote:
The real nightmare tends to show up when you duplicate a modifier.
What does
.method given $x given $y; # which object's .method is called?
mean? It gets worse below
I made a mistake in my original post, they definitely need to be left-
as
--- Matthijs van Duin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the real subject.. has the issue of multiple statement modifiers
> already been settled? I saw some mention it wasn't going to be
> supported, but also mentions of how it would be useful; I can think
> of such a situation myself:
>
> .meth
15 matches
Mail list logo
