Larry,
Thanks for the quick reply.
On Mar 23, 2005, at 1:42 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
This is very much bound up in the meaning of .foo in various contexts,
which we haven't actually nailed down yet. For the moment I would
recommend writing all code with explicit $self.foo or $_.foo until
we figure th
Yuval Kogman writes:
> More!
>
> can you have several slurpy params, of the same type, which are
> assigned contiguous sequences of the thing they can slurp?
>
> foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], *%a, [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> foo(1, 2, 3, a => b, c => d, 4, 5, 6);
>
> for me that makes sense
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:08:17PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:06 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > This seems a little backwards--I think all positionals should be bound
: > before you start binding named pairs, if currying is to be consistent with
: > "ordinary" binding.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:58:32PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Note, the adverbial :{...} is defined as a named binding to the first
: *& parameter (or first *$ parameter if there isn't a slurpy *&), so
: it's already bound by Step C, even if it occurred later syntactically.
Hmm, that's ambiguous,
Larry Wall writes:
> Step A: For each positional parameter, if the next supplied argument is:
>
> 1) a non-pair
> 2) a pair, and this parameter is explicitly declared Pair, or
> 3) a hash, and this parameter is declared Hash, either explicitly,
>or implicitly with a % sigil,
W
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:09:37PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: > Step A: For each positional parameter, if the next supplied argument is:
: >
: > 1) a non-pair
: > 2) a pair, and this parameter is explicitly declared Pair, or
: > 3) a hash, and this parameter is de
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:18:44PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Rod Adams wrote:
: > multi sub postcircumflex::<[ ]>(MyArray $obj : [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is rw
{...}
: >
: >but I'll wait for S14 before speculating further.
:
: Will that ever be written? And if yes, will it be like S13 which
: is b
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >my @array of Int;
: >
: >is really short for
: >
: >my @array is Array of Int;
:
: How does 'is' relate to 'does'? I mean is the above @array
: ready for operation?
Yes, I think "is" typically implies
