John Siracusa:
> Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
> EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in Perl 6
> code...
Well, the easiest signature to do is probably:
sub for([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
PRE { @list.end =~ Code }
...
We have been discussing how to pass data to Tk callbacks.
In particular Entry widget validation routines.
There are a number of items that they _might_ be interested in
but a typical routine would only use a few.
Currently it passes them all as positional parameters.
One idea that occured to me/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
> Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
> left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
>
> Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE vers
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
-Mark
> Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
> a mandatory name-only parameter?
Not directly, no. However, some trickyness with macros would probably
let you do it. I don't yet understand macros well enough to show
you...
Luke
> Mark
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
>
> > Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
> > are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
> > left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
> >
> > Yes, it's more expensive to use, just li
In E6, Damian write: "A junction is a single scalar value that can act like
two or more values at once".
Whenever I see a statement like this, I tend ask myself "What happenned to
zero and one?". Perhaps its intentional; perhaps its sloppy writing. What
issues arise with junctions of 0 or 1 member
On 2003-08-01 at 09:54:57, Dave Whipp wrote:
> A junction on one element is almost always redundant, and can be cast
> directly into the scalar that is its eigenstate. The only issue with doing
> that is that certain junction methods might not be available. However, in
> the case of a C, an abjunct
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Quick, dumb question: what is an "abjunction"? How does it differ
> from a junction?
An abjuction requires that none of its members match. For example,
($a == none(1,2,3)) is true for any value of $a except 1, 2 or 3.
Dave.
> In E6, Damian write: "A junction is a single scalar value that can act like
> two or more values at once".
>
> Whenever I see a statement like this, I tend ask myself "What happenned to
> zero and one?". Perhaps its intentional; perhaps its sloppy writing. What
> issues arise with junctions of 0
> "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Quick, dumb question: what is an "abjunction"? How does it differ
> > from a junction?
>
> An abjuction requires that none of its members match. For example,
> ($a == none(1,2,3)) is true for any value of $a except 1, 2 or 3.
Actually, no :-)
disjunc
FWIW, we're aware of the problem.
I posed this very question to Larry a few months back, when I was writing E6.
We're still mulling over the correct answer. The last thought on the problem
that Larry's shared with me was that there may need to be a special case for
allowing a single &block param
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying &part:
&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assuming
"nothing" (different from "assum
> Trey asked:
>
> > To take the E6 example of currying &part:
> >
> >&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
> >
> > One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
> > originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
> >
> > What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assu
I wrote:
> Damian explains:
> > Trey asked:
> >
> > > To take the E6 example of currying &part:
> > >
> > >&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
> > >
> > > One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in C<&part>
> > > originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
> > >
> > > What if one wanted
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
Probably. I think that the '?', '*', and '+ prefixes are abbreviations for
traits (C, C, C). So a named,
mandatory parameter would be:
sub foo($bar is named) {...}
Alternat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
> may need to be a special case for allowing a single &block parameter after
> the slurpy
And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches...
(Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz
Hello,
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
to the following perl6 junctions:
LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
=
(forall x)(x
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Derek Ross wrote:
> Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
> In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
> to the following perl6 junctions:
>
> LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
> =
> Hello,
>
> Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
Yes. Damian and I have already worked them out in a link I have
already posted today:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=3DF2FE76.6050602%40conway.org&rnum=2
> In par
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
We have been discussing how to pass data to Tk callbacks.
In particular Entry widget validation routines.
There are a number of items that they _might_ be interested in
but a typical routine would only use a few.
Currently it passes them all as positional parameters.
One
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:01:15PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
: > The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
: > may need to be a special case for allowing a single &block parameter after
: > the slurpy
:
: And the Rubyome
22 matches
Mail list logo
