HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
And in the general case that's a slightly more expensive mechanism
to get a space (it involves at least a subrule lookup). Perhaps
we could also create a visible meta sequence for it, in the same
way that
Hi,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sub foo (*@;AoA) { @;AoA }
>>
>> my @array1 = ;
>> my @array2 = ;
>>
>> my @AoA = foo @array1, @array2;
>> say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # 2?
>
> 1
>
>> say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # a b c?
>
Hi,
Rob Kinyon wrote:
> On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yep. Also note that "for" is not a special magical construct in Perl
>> 6, it's a simple subroutine (&statement_control:, with the
>> signature ([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *&code)). (Of course, it'll usually be
>> op
Hi,
Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:51:03PM +0100, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
> : according to the new S03, till is the new name for the flipflop
> : operator.
>
> Presuming we can make it work out as an infix macro.
Ah, it's a macro. This clarifies things.
> : Do the flipflop oper
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm. How is (*@;AoA) different from (Array [EMAIL PROTECTED]) then? (Assuming
> that
> foo(@a; @b) desugars to foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]).)
Well, it's not at all, under that assumption. But that assumption is
wrong. I thi
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
> that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
> optimized &statement_control:.
Which it definitely can't without some pragma.
I wonder if they sh
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:23:35PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> >There's also , unless someone redefines the subrule.
> >And in the general case that's a slightly more expensive mechanism
> >to get a space (it involves at least a subrule lookup). Perhaps
> >we could also crea
Larry Wall:
> Juerd:
>> Ruud:
>>> Maybe
>>> "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
>>> is a nice alternative of
>>> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
>>
>> Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep it, please? Please?
Thanks for the support.
> We already have, from A5, \x[0a;0d], so you can supposedly say
>
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 10:27:17AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:26:21AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: > : Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-20 1:19 (+0100):
: > : > Maybe
: > : > "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
: >
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 05:49:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
: Larry Wall:
: > Juerd:
: >> Ruud:
:
: >>> Maybe
: >>> "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
: >>> is a nice alternative of
: >>> "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
: >>
: >> Hmm, very cute and friendly! Can we keep it, please? Please?
:
: Tha
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:02:57AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: But I'd like to reserve < > for delimiting what is returned by $<>,
: the string officially matched:
:
: "foo bar baz" ~~ /:w foo < \w+ > baz/
: say $/; # foo bar baz
: say $<>; # bar
Though it occurs to me that there's
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
optimized &statement_control:.
Which it definitely can't without some p
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:51:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
: > that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
: > optimized &statement_control:.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:45:56AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Another issue in "if" optimization is whether the blocks in fact do
: anything blockish that have to be scoped to the block. This is a
: determination that Perl 5 makes when it's compiling blocks. It's
: basically an attribute that mig
Hi,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hm. How is (*@;AoA) different from (Array [EMAIL PROTECTED]) then? (Assuming
>> that
>> foo(@a; @b) desugars to foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]).)
>
> Well, it's not at all, under that assumption. But
Larry Wall:
> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
> dev.perl.org one day latency but html-ified
> svn.perl.org up to the minute but only in pod
Thanks, much better. Can't say that I haven't been there before.
There is a "[[:alpha:][:digit:]" and a "[[:alpha:][:digit]]" on the
A5-page.
>> The '^' could
On 11/21/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove
> >>that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal
> >>optimized
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:11:33PM +0100, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Also, is specifying other, non-slurpy arguments prior to a slurpy
: @;multidim_arglist legal?
Yes, though we have to be careful about what happens when we bind the
entire first dimension and then get a <== boundary. That's proba
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:48:30PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: To illustrate:
:
: sub foo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
: say [EMAIL PROTECTED];
: }
: sub bar (*@;a) {
: say +@;a;
: }
: foo(1,2,3; 4,5,6); # 6
: bar(1,2,3; 4,5,6); # 2
:
: That is, the regular [E
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:49:16PM +0100, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Aha! FYI, I got that interpretation from r6628 of S09 [1]:
: > The following two constructs are structurally indistinguishable:
: >
: > (0..10; 1,2,4; 3)
: > ([0..10], [1,2,3,4], [3])
Sorry, started revising that one a c
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:05:31PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: This is very close to a proposal I made to the ruby-dev mailing list
: (which was Warnocked). I proposed a very basic engine that would work
: with the parser/lexer to determine what action to take instead of
: using the huge case statem
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 07:57:59PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
: There is a "[[:alpha:][:digit:]" and a "[[:alpha:][:digit]]" on the
: A5-page.
Hmm, well, thanks--I went to fix it and I see Patrick beat me to
the fix. But in one of the updates, it says:
+[Update: Actually, that's now wri
All:
Back in the summer of 2003, Fotango offered financial support for Ponie
development for 2 years. Nicholas took up the development hat after Arthur,
but things are awfully quiet. Since summer 2005 has come and gone, I wonder
if funding has been extended. I know that Nicholas opened up the repos
Larry Wall:
> in one of the updates, it says:
>
> +[Update: Actually, that's now written C<< <+alpha+digit> >>,
> avoiding +the mistaken impression entirely.]
In dev's A05.html I only found:
"[Update: That must now be written <++>, or it will be
mistaken for «alpha> looks right to me.
Ide
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:43:21AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Let's see, where did I put my stash of generic quotes?
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about h
Patrick R. Michaud:
>> 's/$/foo/' becomes 's//foo/'
>>
>
> Uh, no, because is still a zero width assertion. :-)
That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
perl5 -e '$_="abc"; s/(?<=...)/x/; print'
perl5 -e '$_="abc"; s/(?!.)/x/; print'
's//foo/'
--
Grtz, Ruud
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-21 12:08 (-0800):
> Unfortunately, though,
>
> would be ambiguous, and/or wrong.
Well, we could of course change "-" to mean "-1 or fewer", as "+" means
"+1 or more"... :D
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy
Patrick R. Michaud:
> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
>> Patrick R. Michaud:
>>> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
's/$/foo/' becomes 's//foo/'
>>>
>>> Uh, no, because is still a zero width assertion. :-)
>>
>> That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
>
> Because ".*" matches "", // would be true at
> ev
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-11-14 through 2005-11-21
All~
Welcome to another Perl 6 Summary. The attentive among you may notice
that this one is on time. I am not sure how that happened, but we will
try and keep it up. On a complete side note, I think there should be a
Perl guild o
Patrick R. Michaud:
> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
>> 's/$/foo/' becomes 's//foo/'
>
> Uh, no, because is still a zero width assertion. :-)
That's why I chose it. It is not at the end-of-string?
>>>
>>> Because ".*" matches "", // would be true at
>>> every position in the string, in
In pugs, r7961:
my @pats = /1/, /2/;
say "MATCH" if 1 ~~ any @pats; # MATCH
say "MATCH" if 0 ~~ any @pats; # no match
So far so good. But:
my $junc = any @pats;
say "MATCH" if 1 ~~ $junc; # no match
say "MATCH" if 0 ~~ $junc; # no match
Bug? Feature?
--
Gaal Yaha
31 matches
Mail list logo
