Jonathan Lang writes:
> My apologies for the break in the chain of responses; I lost your reply
> before I could reply to it, and had to retrieve it from the list archives.
>
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Well, "multi" is no longer a declarator in its own right, but rather a
> > modifier. Synopsis
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
way to write it, but didn't see one.
> So,
Simon Cozens writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> > reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
>
> The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
> way to writ
Luke Palmer:
> Well... it is and isn't. At first sight, it makes the language look
> huge, the parser complex, a lot of syntax to master, etc. It also seems
> to me that there is little discrimination when adding new syntax.
Correct.
> But I've come to look at it another way. Perl 6 is doing
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Luke Palmer:
> > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
>
> Bah, should be able to!
Will be able to.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> > Luke Palmer:
> > > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
> Will be able to.
I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
is sufficiently advanced to massively clone Larry...
--
Sometimes it's better n
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Control flow variables
>
>
> I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> reminded me of something I see rather often i
Austin Hastings writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> > reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
> > Here's the code, Perl6ized:
> >
> > ... ;
> > my $is_ok = 1;
> > for 0..6 -> $t {
> >
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> > > Luke Palmer:
> > > > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
> > Will be able to.
>
> I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
> is sufficiently advanced to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
> &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
$cleanup = bless {}, class {
method DESTROY { ... }
}
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
> > &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
>
> This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
>
> $cleanup = b
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: Austin Hastings
> Cc: Language List
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > I was reading the most recent articl
s/// in string context should return the string after substituion.
It seems obvious to me but I mention it because I can't find it
in the apocalypses.
--
stef
OOPS, totally miss-read your code, ignore my first part of my last
message.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luke Palmer wrote:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
Given that we've introduced the concept of "if" having a return status:
my $result = if ($a) { $a } else { $b };
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
...
As a "Bvalue" where possible, so they can cascade and nest.
=Austin
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephane Payrard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: s/// in string context should return the string
>
>
> s/// in strin
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Given that we've introduced the conce
Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wr
Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wr
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
... # 3
}
...would return $a if $a was true, and fall through to (3) if it was
false?
It sure should, provided there were a correct context waiting, which
would
quite nicel
Luke Palmer started a discussion:
I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
condition, and do something only if the condition was never true.
$is_ok is a control flow variable, something I like to minimize. Now,
there are other ways to do this:
if (0..6 ==> grep -> $
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, just to make sure, these two lines are both valid, but do completely
different things:
return if $a;
Means:
if ($a) { return }
return if $a { $a }
Means:
if ($a) { return $a } else { return undef }
Damian
Damian Conway writes:
> Luke Palmer started a discussion:
>
>
> >I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
> >condition, and do something only if the condition was never true.
> >$is_ok is a control flow variable, something I like to minimize. Now,
> >there are other way
> -Original Message-
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:02 PM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Luke Palmer started a discussion:
>
>
> > I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:11 PM
> To: Austin Hastings
> Cc: Michael Lazzaro; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> >
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> This seems excessive, but easily discarded during optimization. On the other
> hand, I don't trust the "last statement evaluated" behavior for loops, since
> the optimizer could very well do surprising things to loop statements.
> (Likewise, however, f
Austin Hastings writes:
> > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Austin Hastings writes:
> > > > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Would that then imply that
> > > >
> > > > sub blah {
> > > >... # 1
> > > >return if $a;
Luke Palmer wrote:
My C/C typo may
have misled you, but the original example pushed only if *none* of them
passed the condition.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.
So you want:
push @moves, [$i, $j];
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
pop @moves;
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:34 PM
> To: Language List
> Subject: RE: Control flow variables
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > This seems excessive, but easily discarded during optimization.
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:34 PM
> > To: Language List
> > Subject: RE: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> >
> >
Damian Conway wrote:
> push @moves, [$i, $j];
> for 0..6 -> $t {
> if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
> pop @moves;
> last;
> }
> }
>
>
Indeed, an elegant way around the problem.
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
Seiler Thomas wrote:
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
for 0..6, 'ok' -> $
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Jonathan Lang writes:
> > Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > Well, "multi" is no longer a declarator in its own right, but rather
> > > a modifier. Synopsis & Exegesis 6 show this.
> >
> > I don't know about Exegesis 6,
>
> Then you should probably read it. It is the most recent o
Damian Conway wrote:
Seiler Thomas wrote:
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types -> $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
given @array_
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types -> $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideef
David Wheeler wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types -> $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
David Wheeler wrote:
Isn't that just:
for @array_of_random_values_and_types, 'ok' -> $t {
when 'ok' { yada(); last }
last unless some_sort_of_test($t);
}
IOW, the topic is only 'ok' when all of the items in the array have been
processed
Unless, of course, the string 'ok'
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:44 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
And also if @array_of_random_values contains 'ok'.
D'oh! See Damian's solution, then. ;-)
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://w
Jonathan Lang wrote:
multi sub call ($a, $b: $c) {...}
multi submethod invoke ($a, $b: $c) {...}
multi method check ($a, $b: $c) {...}
Why do we suddenly need to append the "multi" keyword to "submethod" and
"method"?
So the compiler knows we really did mean for that (sub)method to be multip
I think most everyone is missing the new simplicity of the current
conception of "multi". It's now completely orthogonal to scoping
issues. It merely says, "I'm putting multiple names into a spot
that would ordinarily demand a unique name."
In other words, what a name means in a given scope is a
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: [perl] RE: s/// in string context should return the string
> As a "Bvalue" where possible, so they can cascade and nest.
Exc
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So the following three declarations cover very similar (but not quite
> identical) things:
>
> multi sub call ($a: $b) {...}
> submethod invoke ($a: $b) {...}
> method check ($a: $b) {...}
>
> All three of these use mu
Larry Wall writes:
> If you write:
>
> multi method add( $self: Foo $foo, Bar $bar );
>
> then there are multiple add methods in the current class. Note the
> invocant is not optional in this case. Also, there's an implied
> second colon after $bar, indicating the end of the arguments to be
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:14:54AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
:
: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
: > > This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
: > > &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
: >
: > This reminds m
47 matches
Mail list logo
