On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:14:37PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Juerd wrote:
>
> If you're really enamoured with the infix operator syntax, consider this
> possibility:
>
> sub infix:-> ($before, $after) {
> $before; # is this line redundant?
> return $after;
> }
> print $
Rod Adams wrote:
Well, that's another explanation that jives with my understanding of
them. But I still don't have an idea of when I would actually want
to use them in something I'm writing.
You can use them to implement all sorts of interesting control flow
constructs.
For example, here's
- Original Message -
From: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, July 1, 2004 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: if not C<,> then what?
> On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 04:14:37PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > Juerd wrote:
> >
> > If you're really enamoured with the infix operator syntax,
> cons
Hi,
If I can assume:
@x = 3..5;
say pop @x;# prints 5
@x = 3..5;
push @x, 6;
say pop @x;# prints 6
say pop @x;# prints 5
What should I expect for the following?
@x = 3..Inf;
say pop @x;# heat death?
- Original Message -
From: Dan Hursh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, July 2, 2004 2:23 pm
Subject: push with lazy lists
> Hi,
>
> If I can assume:
>
> @x = 3..5;
> say pop @x;# prints 5
>
> @x = 3..5;
> push @x, 6;
> say pop @x;# prints 6
>
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 11:34, Austin Hastings wrote:
> [...] when you switch to LC_ALL= language>, you just get really slow performance: Apparently the 'C'
> locale is such a totally special case that the performance of LC_ALL=C
> is one or more orders of magnitude better than LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8,
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:14:37 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Lang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, the whole purpose of the C-style comma is to allow you to place
multiple expressions in a place that's only designed to take one, such as
the various divisions within a loop control set ("loop ($i = 0, $j
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> I remember perl5 scalar:
> scalar($a, $b, $c)
In Perl 6, I presume that means the same as:
[ $a, $b, $c ]
> hm.. sorry, scalar() isn't needed at all:)
>
> 2+(test,test,test)
Likewise, this would be:
2+[test, test, test]
Which should be:
2+3
Ass
consider this:
say for map {...} grep {...} map {...} 1..1_000_000
as far as I can imagine, in perl5 it does:
1)flatten 1..1_000_000 into anonimous array; (maybe in this particular
case it is optimized in perl5, like it done in C.. I don't know.)
2)map trough it elements and store results in
