On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 08:53:02PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: Basically, I found this line in Synopsis 2, in the section talking about
unspace:
:
: 1+3\ i;
:
: So the question is about whether this example should be kept as
: still valid code or whether it is now invalid and a fossil
I think I found a Synopsis fossil, in light of revision 29931, but wanted to be
sure ...
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Author: lwall
Date: 2010-03-03 18:34:04 +0100 (Wed, 03 Mar 2010)
New Revision: 29931
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
Log:
[S02] remove 1/2 and +2-3i literal f
Larry Wall wrote:
Dealing with antediluvian displays sounds like a good spot for that
ancient technology, the preprocessor,
: I also figured that this would be a fairly simple thing to do.
Well, it will be simple, once we have macros; in fact, textual macros
can be regarded simply as scoped pre
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:39:58PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: >Surely this is not a common-enough requirement to warrant a special
: >syntax.
: >
: >At 80-columns, you can represent integers up to
:
: >Surely that's enough for the vast majority of users, isn't it?
:
: We
Damian Conway wrote:
Surely this is not a common-enough requirement to warrant a special
syntax.
At 80-columns, you can represent integers up to
Surely that's enough for the vast majority of users, isn't it?
Well, 80 columns was an example, albeit the most common, but the principle idea
wa
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't unspace work for this?
>
> It would seem that S02 says otherwise:
>
> Although we say that the unspace hides the whitespace from the parser, it
> does not hide whitespace from the lexer. As a result, unspa
Surely this is not a common-enough requirement to warrant a special
syntax.
At 80-columns, you can represent integers up to ninety-nine
quinvigintillion, nine hundred ninety-nine quattuorvigintillion, nine
hundred ninety-nine trevigintillion, nine hundred ninety-nine
duovigintillion, nine hundred
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Doesn't unspace work for this?
It would seem that S02 says otherwise:
Although we say that the unspace hides the whitespace from the parser, it
does not hide whitespace from the lexer. As a result, unspace is not allowed
within a token.
So, assuming that an integer
Doesn't unspace work for this?
On Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Darren Duncan wrote:
> pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
>
> Modified:
> docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
> Log:
> [S02] remove 1/2 and +2-3i literal forms, now rely on angle dwimmery for
> literals,
> or constant folding otherwise.
>
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
Log:
[S02] remove 1/2 and +2-3i literal forms, now rely on angle dwimmery for
literals,
or constant folding otherwise.
I find this an interesting change, and I can see how it would simplify some
things, even thoug
Author: lwall
Date: 2010-03-03 18:34:04 +0100 (Wed, 03 Mar 2010)
New Revision: 29931
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
Log:
[S02] remove 1/2 and +2-3i literal forms, now rely on angle dwimmery for
literals,
or constant folding otherwise.
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S02-bits.pod
==
11 matches
Mail list logo
