Larry Wall <> writes:
> But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
> approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
> I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
> on the left. So in this:
>
> for parallel(@x, @y, @z) -> $x
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: >Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
: >will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
: >from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
: >
: >
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:27:56PM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
: Mutt?
:
: I'm using mutt and I still haven't had the privledge of correctly viewing one
: of these unicode characters yet. I'm gonna be really mad if you say you're
: also using an OS X terminal. I suspect that it's my horrific OS X
Michael Lazzaro asked:
So how could we say "take 2 elements from @a, stepping 10 indices at a
time, plus one from @b"?
I think it's overreaching to try and fold this into C.
I'd suggest that hyperslicing @a within a C will probably
take care of that (presumably uncommon) case.
Damian
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 01:40 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
As Buddha Buck suggested elsewhere, and as I have coded above,
I would imagine that this functionality would be mediated by pairs
and merged into a single C function. So that last example is just:
for zip(@a=>2,@b=>1) -> $x,$y,$z
Scott Duff wrote:
Very nice. The n-ary "zip" operator.
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well?
Yes, I expect so. Much as C<|>, C<&>, and C<^> will be operator versions
of C, C, and C.
And I'd suggest that it be implemented something like:
sub zip(ARRAY *@sources; $by = 1) {
if exi
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
for zip(@a,@b,@c) -> $x,$y,$z { ... }
sub zip (\@:ref repeat{1,}) {
my $ma
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:21:54PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > But let's keep it
> > out of the signature, I think. In other words, if something like
> >
> > for @x ⥠@y ⥠@z -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
> >
> > is to work, then
> >
> > @result = @x ⥠@y ⥠@z;
> >
>
Larry wrote:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(@x, @y, @z) -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
the sig
On 04/11/02 17:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
> and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
> because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
> being able to see my own Unicode c
Larry Wall:
(B# for @x $B!B(B @y $B!B(B @z -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
(B
(BEven if you decide to use UTF-8 operators (which I am Officially
(BRecommending Against), *please* don't use this one. This shows up as a
(Bbox in the Outlook UTF-8 font.
(B
(B--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(B@r
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode characters, not to mention everyone
else's. If you don't b
12 matches
Mail list logo
