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
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 take this as an indication that the rules for postcircumfix
operators
