On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Damian Conway wrote:
@xyz = uniq @xyz;
or better still:
@xyz.=uniq;
Speaking of which, while I think that methods on the implicit topicalizer
and the C<.=> assignement operator are indeed cool, I wonder if any
provision will be made for a convenient stand in for "wh
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:43:21AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> David Storrs OOC'd:
>
> >OOC, will there be a way to control where C gets its randomness
> >from? (e.g. perl's builtin PRNG, /dev/random, egd, etc)
>
> Sure:
>
> # Use RBR (Really Bad Randomness) algorithm...
> temp *rand
On Feb 13, 2005, at 3:54 PM, David Storrs wrote:
Ok, so it requires actually overriding the rand function and providing
your own implementation. I was hoping for something a bit more
automagical (probably involving a property or role, since they seem to
be the answer to everything these days), but
Luke Palmer wrote:
That's quite nice, but I've been kind of wanting to go the other way.
You know, not every operation in Perl 6 needs to have a punctuation
operator.
I think we should not use \, and also get rid of ^. I'm interested in
seeing an example where using ^ is readable enough over on
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >That's quite nice, but I've been kind of wanting to go the other way.
> >You know, not every operation in Perl 6 needs to have a punctuation
> >operator.
> >
> >I think we should not use \, and also get rid of ^. I'm interested in
> >seeing an examp
HaloO Luke,
you wrote:
if $a \ $b == 3 {...}
*If A nor B is 3 ...
What does the * in front of the if mean? Not?
With "grammar reason" I meant the formal grammar of Perl6
not the one of natural english. Are you aware of such reasons?
In English it's more like:
if \ $a \ $b == 3 {
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> HaloO Luke,
>
> you wrote:
> >if $a \ $b == 3 {...}
> > *If A nor B is 3 ...
>
> What does the * in front of the if mean? Not?
"Ungrammatical"
> With "grammar reason" I meant the formal grammar of Perl6 not the one
> of natural english. Are you aware of such rea
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Maybe "set" should be an operator akin to "any", "all", "one", and "none",
at least in terms of "&" and "|". That is, if junctions are special cases
of sets, why not allow for the creation of generic sets in much the same
way? Then you could have:
# $A and $B are sets,
unio
