On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:21:40AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >Joked? Every other language that has pattern matching signatures that
> >I know of (that is, ML family and Prolog) uses _. Why should we break
> >that? IMO, it's immediately obvious what it means.
> >
> >Somet
Luke Palmer wrote:
Joked? Every other language that has pattern matching signatures that
I know of (that is, ML family and Prolog) uses _. Why should we break
that? IMO, it's immediately obvious what it means.
Something tells me that in signature unification, "undef" means "this
has to be un
HaloO Carl,
you wrote:
TSa: Prefers to rely on lazy evaluation, and says both tounge-in-cheek
and philosophically that if I don't want to care about some elements,
I should do so, and let Perl6 optimize. Proposes several ways of not
giving a name to a variable.
This hits home. And I did at no
I'm not sure we've reached consensus here, so I will try to summarize
what everyone said so far in order to clear my own head a bit. :)
Sorry in advance if i horribly misrepresent anyone's opinions.
Luke: Thinks the "_" syntax is no joke, since every language with
pattern matching abilities has it
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 07:23:06 -0400, David Storrs wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:08 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
> >>the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about
HaloO,
Carl Mäsak wrote:
But what if I don't care about the elements 1,4,7? Would the following
be a sane syntax?
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> undef, $x, $y { say $x }
I think that, if the concept of lazy list evaluation is running
deep in Perl 6 than the obvious solution to me is:
for @a -> $x
On Sep 22, 2005, at 3:08 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about using _ instead
of undef. :)
Joked? Every other language that has pat
On 9/22/05, Carl Mäsak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, to me it looks fairly intuitive. undef here means "don't alias
> the element, just throw it away"... gaal joked about using _ instead
> of undef. :)
Joked? Every other language that has pattern matching signatures that
I know of (that is,
hcchien raised the following question on #perl6[1]:
If I want to loop through a nine-element array three elements at a time, I do
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> $x, $y, $z { say $x }
But what if I don't care about the elements 1,4,7? Would the following
be a sane syntax?
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> undef,
