Where is the most definitive list of known Perl6 (not Parrot) builtin
types?
The following have been specified/implied by the A/Es:
scalar
bit (== bool? == boolean?)
num
int
str
bigint
bignum
bitarray (maybe)
ref
rx (or regex,rule?)
code
classname
Object
arra
On 20 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: However it means that the binary ops become:
:
: $a || $b # logical or
: $a .| $b # bitwise or
: $a && $b # logical and
: $a .& $b # bitwise and
: $a ! $b # logical xor
: $a .! $b # bitwise xor
:
: That makes logical xor look a little inconsisten
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Where is the most definitive list of known Perl6 (not Parrot) builtin
: types?
:
: The following have been specified/implied by the A/Es:
:
: scalar
: bit (== bool? == boolean?)
We could always call them "umu", which
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:40:40AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> "returns" is synonymous with "of", mostly so we can use "returns" on
> subroutines, because "of" sounds weird:
>
> my int sub foo () {...}
> my sub foo () of int { ... }
> my sub foo () returns int { ... }
I read this and I
> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
> superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Luke
Hi,
Perl is my favorite language, and I'm eagerly following Perl 6 development. So
I would like to ask this question here. Sorry if I'm being inconvenient...
Do you think that Lisp macros make the language more powerful than others (eg
Perl)? I mean, do they really give a competitive advantage, o
> > On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
> > superpositional xor.
>
> Which would behave how, exactly?
! the way people expect, I fear.
-Miko
> Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:43:08 -0300
> From: Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Hi,
>
> Perl is my favorite language, and I'm eagerly following Perl 6
> development. So I would like to ask this question here. Sorry if I'm
> being inconvenient...
>
> Do you think that Lisp
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Well, that's still a matter for conjecture.
N-ary xor isn't particularly useful, because binary xor naturally generalizes
to: "an odd number of these N operands are true". (Hint:
Nicholas Clark:
# I read this and I think
#
# sub ... () of Borg { }
sub ven () of Nine { ... }
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
Wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in
New York and his head is meowing
Larry Wall:
# : > I also like the idea that ~ is entirely freed up for some other
# : > nefarious use.
# :
# : Yeah; how'd that happen? Seems like not too long ago we
# were short of
# : punctuation symbols, and now you've got a spare one lying around.
#
# Pity there's no extra brackets lying a
Brent Dax wrote:
Can the new nefarious use be concat? Pretty please?
There was a brief period 18 months ago when tilde *was* the designated
Perl 6 concatenation operator.
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it return to that role, now that
it's not needed elsewhere. And, of course, that would ac
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of C would do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement string,
and returns a new
Damian Conway wrote:
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to
let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of C would
do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement s
Damian wrote:
> (b) the symmetry of:
> Logical:&& || !!
> Bitwise:.& .| .!
> Superpositional: & | !
> is important...mnemonically, DWIMically, and aesthetically.
When I
15 matches
Mail list logo
