On 7/29/05, Flavio S. Glock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is "for =" only for filehandles? I tried:
No, it's for anything that supports iteration... `=$foo` ==
`$foo.next()`, if I recall correctly. It's probably not yet
implemented.
Aankhen
Hi,
are the following assumptions correct?
sub foo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { push @args, 42 }
sub bar ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is rw) { push @args, 42 }
foo @some_array; # dies ("Can't modify constant array...")
bar @some_array;
# works, but does not change @some_array, as the
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:46:14 +0300, Yuval Kogman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I like your Pack object - that is the parsed template, but I'd also
> like to be able to generate these templates with a programmatic
> interface that isn't string concatenation...
>
> Is it just a simple data st
On 7/29/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or is @args always readonly and the declaration ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is rw) is
> an
> error?
The declaration ([EMAIL PROTECTED] is rw) can't be outlawed as it is how Perl 5
default sig translates to Perl 6.
IMHO @args as a parameter works
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 04:59:21AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> However, my intuition is that a soft-typed system, with clearly defined
> dynamic parts translated to runtime coerce and dependent types, that can
> work exactly as Perl 5 did at first, but provide sensible inferencing
> and compile-t
HaloO,
Adriano Ferreira wrote:
Only
sub foobar (@args) { push @args, 42 }
would change @some_array in
foobar @some_array;
That is how I undestood that. Can someone confirm this belief?
I share your belief. It's up to others to confirm it. I just
want to add that I f
Just wondering - would 'reverse =$foo' call '$foo.previous()' ?
- Flavio
2005/7/29, Aankhen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 7/29/05, Flavio S. Glock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is "for =" only for filehandles? I tried:
>
> No, it's for anything that supports iteration... `=$foo` ==
> `$foo.next()`,
In S06's Currying section, there are some strange looking examples:
&textfrom := &substr.assuming(:str($text) :len(Inf));
&textfrom := &substr.assuming:str($text):len(Inf);
&woof ::= &bark:(Dog).assuming :pitch;
Why is it allowed to omit comma between adverbial pairs, and even
omit
Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In S06's Currying section, there are some strange looking examples:
>
> &textfrom := &substr.assuming(:str($text) :len(Inf));
>
> &textfrom := &substr.assuming:str($text):len(Inf);
>
> &woof ::= &bark:(Dog).assuming :pitch;
>
> Why is it al
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 12:53:03PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In S06's Currying section, there are some strange looking examples:
> >
> > &textfrom := &substr.assuming(:str($text) :len(Inf));
> >
> > &textfrom := &substr.assuming:
Luke wrote:
A variant a is said to be _more specific than_ a variant b if:
* Every type in a's signature is a subset (derived from or
equal) of the corresponding type in b's signature.
* At least one of these is a proper subset (not an equality).
A variant is dispatched i
I was thinking about lazyness and IO and worked out this potenial
gotcha. In essence its quite simmler to the pipe buffering problems
you sometimes can get in perl5.
my IO $news = io("nntp://nntp.perl.org",:rw); # Open a nntp connection
my $banner = =$news # Throw away the banner. So far so goo
12 matches
Mail list logo
