On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Matija Papec writes:
> >
> > Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
> > days ($hash{MYKEY})?
>
> Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions that I
> was against for the longest
David Storrs writes:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 06:39:07PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Matija Papec writes:
> > >
> > > Would there be a way to still use simple unquoted hash keys like in old
> > > days ($hash{MYKEY})?
> >
> > Of course there's a way to do it. This is one of those decisions th
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . . . .
> Of the qualities you listed for Pumpking:
>
> "Look, I already told you! I deal with the goddamn customers so the
> engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing
> with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell
The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Different OO models
> Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects
> inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6.
Urgle. I've completely failed to explain myself so as to be
understood. That wasn't
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Considering that:
:
: $obj.meth "foo";
:
: No longer needs parentheses, and that argument processing is done on the
: callee rather than the caller side (well, most of the time), do I still
: have to predeclare C if I want to say:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:34:16AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: > This has no direct bearing on p6l, since performance is a p6i issue.
: > But perhaps in the interests of performance as well as hackery we
: > should explicitl
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:09:51PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: : On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:34:16AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: : > This has no direct bearing on p6l, since performance is a p6i issue.
: : > But perhaps in the
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: how 'bout
:
: @x = gather{
: loop{
: take time
: }
: } # can this be @x = gather { take time loop }
: push @x, "later";
: say pop @x;# "later"
Can probably be made to work right.
: say pop @x;# heat death?
Ye
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:03:49PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
: Sure. The parser won't care what kind of characters
: make up the operator, as long as its defined by the
: time the operator is encountered. The "operator"
: rules in the grammar will probably be as simple as this:
:
: # where x is
- Original Message -
From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 11:25 pm
Subject: Re: push with lazy lists
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan
Hursh wrote:
> : how 'bout
> :
> : @x = gather{
> : loop{
> : take time
> : }
> : } # can
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:50:16PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 11:25 pm
> Subject: Re: push with lazy lists
>
> > On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan
> Hursh wrote:
> > : how 'bout
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
