On 1/5/06, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > Therefore,
> >
> > $x = 3;
> > if $x <= 1 & 5 {say 'smaller'}
> > if $x > 1 & 5 {say 'larger'}
> >
> > should produce exactly the same output as
> >
> > $x = 3;
> > if $x <= 1 && $x <= 5 {say 'smaller'}
>
> This is sligh
Me no follow. Please use smaller words?
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Rob Kinyon wrote:
To me, this implies that junctions don't have a complete definition.
Either they're ordered or they're not.
So, is there a number between 0 and 1? Shades between black and white?
When is a 360 degree turn not returning a system into its initial s
On 1/4/06, Luke Palmer wrote:
The other thing that is deeply disturbing to me, but apparently not to
many other people, is that I could have a working, well-typed program
with explicit annotations.
I don't think it disturbs me... but that might just be because I
don't really understand it.
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2006-01-05 18:32 (+0100):
> Juerd wrote:
> > Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-12-25 17:37 (+0100):
> >> I disagree about binding only being a language thing:
> > I fail to see how your example code illustrates your disagreement.
> >> return 42
> >> if (my
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-12-25 17:37 (+0100):
>> I disagree about binding only being a language thing:
>
> I fail to see how your example code illustrates your disagreement.
>
>> return 42
>> if (my $short := $long_parameter_name) == $specialcase;
I
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-12-25 17:37 (+0100):
> I disagree about binding only being a language thing:
I fail to see how your example code illustrates your disagreement.
> return 42
> if (my $short := $long_parameter_name) == $specialcase;
That's terribly horrible style!
Rob Kinyon wrote:
> To me, this implies that junctions don't have a complete definition.
> Either they're ordered or they're not. Either I can put them in a <=
> expression and it makes sense or I can't. If it makes sense, then that
> implies that if $x <= $y is true, then $x > $y is false. Otherwi
On 1/4/06, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, this was introduced for a reason:
>
> sub min($x,$y) {
> $x <= $y ?? $x !! $y
> }
> sub min2($x, $y) {
> if $x <= $y { return $x }
> if $x > $y { return $y }
> }
>
> In the presence of junctions,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Of course, this was introduced for a reason:
>
> sub min($x,$y) {
> $x <= $y ?? $x !! $y
> }
> sub min2($x, $y) {
> if $x <= $y { return $x }
> if $x > $y { return $y }
> }
>
> In the presence of junctions, these two functions are not equ
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
But junctions are so "special", that this abstraction wouldn't work.
Well my point is that I dought that it is tractible for the compiler
to come up with the dwimmery to pull the invocation of .values on the
return value out of toomany and leave the cardinality check
HaloO,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
I'm confused at the confusion. To me, junctions are just magical
values, not magical scalars. In theory, one should be able to create
junctions of arrays, hashes, or subs just as easily.
my @junc = any( @a, @b, @c );
my %junc = any( %a, %b, %c );
Hmm, and this
On 1/4/06, Rob Kinyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
> > argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
> > function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
> > ...
> > [1] T
On 1/2/06, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
> > argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
> > function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
> > ...
> > [
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Junctions are frightfully more abstract than that. They only take on
meaning when you evaluate them in boolean context. Before that, they
represent only a potential to become a boolean test.
This is very well spoken err written---except that I would use
beautifully
On 1/4/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I'm almost sure that I agree with him. It's too bad, because
> > except for that little "detail", fmap was looking pretty darn nice for
> > junctions.
>
> Not really. If I read the fmap proposal correctly,
You didn't :-)
> if any($x,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Whatever solution we end up with for Junctions, Larry wants it to
> support this:
>
> if $x == 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
>
> And I'm almost sure that I agree with him. It's too bad, because
> except for that little "detail", fmap was looking pretty darn nice for
> junctions.
Not re
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Which "reads nicely", but it is quite opaque to the naive user.
I guess many things are opaque to naive users ;)
Whatever solution we end up with for Junctions, Larry wants it to
support this:
if $x == 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
And I'm almost sure that I agree with him
On 1/2/06, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I have no idea for this nice syntax, yet. Perhaps something like
>
>my &junc = any(1,2,3);
>my $val = 1;
>
>if junc( &infix:<==>, $val ) {...}
>
> which is arguably clumsy.
I don't think anyone would waste his time arguing that. :-)
> T
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
...
[1] This is one of my quibbles with junctions, too.
You mean the
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> The next thing I thought was: hey, argument *passing* is actually
> *binding* to variables in the sub, so why not use the := operator?
> That works very well, because binding as an expression makes no sense
> anyway, it being a language thing. And luckily, named arguments are
>
On 12/25/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> foo(
> named_arg := $value,
> other_arg := $value,
> );
I'll point out that Joe's argument is completely moot, because you're
not using $s on the named arguments. As a matter of fact, we could
double up the := symbol as both
Joe Gottman skribis 2005-12-24 19:59 (-0500):
> sub foo($named_arg) {say $named_arg;}
> my $named_arg = 1;
> my $value = 2;
> foo($named_arg := $value); #Does this bind my $named_arg to $value?
Because the := is used in .(), it is not binding in the current scope,
but in the called subroutine. In
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:26 PM
> To: perl6-language@perl.org
> Subject: binding arguments
>
> Merry Christmas to you all!
>
> We use => for pairs, but also for something very different: named
> argument binding. Y
24 matches
Mail list logo
