On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less
: entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like
: doing so to say that in all earnestness I'm quite sure no one took any
: offense out
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about how it would come across.
No, to be perfectly honest, it was more culpable th
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:43:21AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Let's see, where did I put my stash of generic quotes?
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about h
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:05:31PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: This is very close to a proposal I made to the ruby-dev mailing list
: (which was Warnocked). I proposed a very basic engine that would work
: with the parser/lexer to determine what action to take instead of
: using the huge case statem
On 11/21/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
> >>that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
> >>optimized
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:45:56AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Another issue in "if" optimization is whether the blocks in fact do
: anything blockish that have to be scoped to the block. This is a
: determination that Perl 5 makes when it's compiling blocks. It's
: basically an attribute that mig
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:51:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
: > that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
: > optimized &statement_control:.
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
optimized &statement_control:.
Which it definitely can't without some p
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
> that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
> optimized &statement_control:.
Which it definitely can't without some pragma.
I wonder if they sh
Hi,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
> On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep. Also note that "for" is not a special magical construct in Perl
>> 6, it's a simple subroutine (&statement_control:, with the
>> signature ([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *&code)). (Of course, it'll usually be
>> op
On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Yep. Also note that "for" is not a special magical construct in Perl 6,
> it's a simple subroutine (&statement_control:, with the signature
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *&code)). (Of course, it'll usually be optimized.)
>
> Example:
>
On 11/20/05, Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reversing an array, changing it, and then rereversing it ---
> I think that kind of pattern is common.
I would think that reversing a string, modifying it, then reversing it
back is more common. Does modifying the reversal of a string modif
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-11-20 16:44 (+0100):
>> Where is the difference (for the user) between a subroutine which
>> returns an appropriate proxy object and an array?
>
> The big difference between pure arrays and referenced arrays, for the
> user, is that pure arrays fl
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-11-20 16:44 (+0100):
> Where is the difference (for the user) between a subroutine which
> returns an appropriate proxy object and an array?
An object is a scalar, an array is an array. Perl has unreferenced
arrays --I like to call them "pure" arrays--, and reference
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Will Perl 6 support mutable for-reverse?
I'd like it! :)
> Some possible answers that I could think of:
>
> (a) Yes, but as a special case
> (b) Yes, because reverse returns lvalue aliases
> (c) No
>
> But there's another one, that I didn't immediately think of:
>
> (d) Yes
Daniel Brockman skribis 2005-11-20 6:58 (+0100):
> Well, wouldn't pushing an element onto @xyzzy be more like
> pushing the car to @foo and the cdr to @bar, or throwing an
> exception if the new element is not a Pair?
Zipping has nothing to do with pairs, though!
Consider, for example:
@foo
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think something like
>
> my @bar := reverse @foo;
>
> would be very useful. Insert an element between positions 1 and 2, and
> the original @foo array gets them between positions -3 and -2.
That would be cool. The concept is reminiscent of using a
change
In Perl 5,
for (reverse @foo) { $_ = $_ + 1 }
actually works. But reverse does not return lvalues, which means that:
(reverse @foo) = map $_ + 1, @foo;
does not do the same thing, but actually throws an exception.
I think, but haven't confirmed, that the for-reverse is an
optimization
18 matches
Mail list logo
