[Rod == [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 13 Jun 2004 11:10:34 -0500]
Jared> I haven't yet seen an example presented where using a Unicode
Jared> operator would save keystrokes, for instance.
Rod> That depends entirely on how you plan to generate them. If you
Rod> are relying on a special command in your
Scott wrote:
I'm just waiting for Damian to speak up :-)
I'm not at all comfortable with the notion of junctions as lvalues.
I've *always* considered a junction to be a special kind of constant, just as
a number or a string or a reference is.
I have trouble with junctive lvalues because I think t
--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:34:15 +1100
> From: "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Add to Address Book
> To: "Language List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations (Damian)
Messages are *not* guaranteed to arrive in the
Austin Hastings wrote:
Perhaps we could consider the junctive lvalues as a sort of implied
?= operation:
junction(@list) = value
means
unless junction(@list) == value
{
given junction {
when 'none' { (@list.grep value) = undef; }
when 'any' { for 0 .. random(@list) { @
On 2004-06-14 at 22:58:58, Matthew Walton wrote:
> 'it would be better to explicitly just say
>
> (@list.grep value) = undef
>
> although I think that might be supposed to be
>
> (@list.grep value) »= undef;
Those do different things according to my understanding. The first
removes all matchi
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2004-06-14 at 22:58:58, Matthew Walton wrote:
'it would be better to explicitly just say
(@list.grep value) = undef
although I think that might be supposed to be
(@list.grep value) »= undef;
Those do different things according to my understanding. The first
removes all matc
Well, I'd speak up
for intentionally allowing some silly alternatives
except that's IMO unnecessary.
With all the apparently-wonderful new possibilities
which we'll soon have
(OK, maybe not as soon as we'd like),
it seems most likely
that some will turn out to be silly.
George "tim toady"
On Mo
