On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
pipe dreams
Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >>
is supposed to be yet another ope
Michele Dondi wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
pipe dreams
Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >>
is supposed
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
:
: > pipe dreams
: > Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
: > appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
:
: Huh?!? It doesn't seem to
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
use <== or ==> for list assignment. That would be...interesting
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 10:04:48AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
:
: > pipe dreams
: > Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
: > appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
:
: Huh?!?
Does
($k, $v) <== pop %hash;
or
($k, $v) <== %hash.pop;
make sense to anyone except me?
Since we now have an explicit concept of pairs, one could consider a
hash to be nothing but an unordered (but well indexed) list of pairs.
So, C<< pop %hash >> would be a lot like C<< each >>, except, of cours
Rod Adams wrote:
Does
($k, $v) <== pop %hash;
or
($k, $v) <== %hash.pop;
make sense to anyone except me?
Makes sense to me. Although I would be more inclined to think of pop as
returning a pair - but does a pair in list context turn into a list of
key, value? If so then the above makes lots of se
Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rod Adams wrote:
>> Does
>> ($k, $v) <== pop %hash;
>> or
>> ($k, $v) <== %hash.pop;
>> make sense to anyone except me?
>
> Makes sense to me. Although I would be more inclined to think of pop
> as returning a pair - but does a pair in list context turn
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 06:04, Rod Adams wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
> >precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
> >as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
> >use <== or ==> for list
--- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Logic Programming in Perl 6
> Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
> answer
> yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
> limiting case
> you could always back out the entire perl 6 grammar and i
On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 14:57, Ovid wrote:
> --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Logic Programming in Perl 6
> > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
> > answer yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
> > limiting case
> > you coul
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:57:17AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
: --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: >Logic Programming in Perl 6
: > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
: > answer
: > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
: > limiting
On 2005.02.08.19.07, Matt Fowles wrote:
| Brock~
|
|
| On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:08:45 -0700, Brock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >
| > Hm. I take that back... it was a silly comment to make and not very
| > mathematically sound. Sorry.
| >
| > --Brock
| >
| > - Forwarded message from Brock <[E
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:57:17AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> --- Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Logic Programming in Perl 6
> > Ovid asked what logic programming in perl 6 would look like. No
> > answer
> > yet, but I suppose I can pick the low hanging fruit: as a
> > limiting
Matt Fowles wrote:
All~
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:51:24 +0100, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
(-1, 1) * (-1, 1) = (-1, 1)
(-1, 1) ** 2 = [0, 1)
The reason that junctions behave this way is
All~
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:48:00 +, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt Fowles wrote:
> > All~
> >
> > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:51:24 +0100, Miroslav Silovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> Well, we see the same kind of thing with s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke
Palmer) wrote:
>Well, we see the same kind of thing with standard interval arithmetic:
>[...]
It didn't bother me that junctions weren't ordered transitively.
(Ordering had better work transitively for ordinary numbers, but
junctions aren'
17 matches
Mail list logo
