Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if there is a macroey thing that we can do here. That is,
> could we make:
>
> ok(1);
> is(1, 1);
> like("foo", /foo/);
>
> Into:
>
> ok(1);
> ok(1 == 1);
> ok("foo" ~~ /foo/);
>
> And lexically analyze the argument to ok()
On 12/5/05, Darren Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Under the current system, a subroutine argument is an alias for the
> container passed to it;
The most immediate offender here is the referential passing semantics.
Here is a code case:
sub foo ($x, &code) {
&code();
say
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The most immediate offender here is the referential passing semantics.
IIRC, the default is to be a read-only ref. Not even local modifications
are permitted if the 'is copy' property is missing.
Here is a code case:
sub foo ($x, &code) {
&code();
TSa skribis 2005-12-05 12:32 (+0100):
> IIRC, the default is to be a read-only ref. Not even local modifications
s/ref/alias/, which you can see as an implicit or automatic reference,
but which we usually don't call that.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl
HaloO,
Darren Duncan wrote:
The problem is that $! is being treated too much like a global variable
and not enough like a lexical variable. Consider the following example:
Wasn't the idea to have $! only bound in CATCH blocks?
sub foo () {
try {
die MyMessage.new( 'key' => 'dan
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:32:03PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >The most immediate offender here is the referential passing semantics.
>
> IIRC, the default is to be a read-only ref. Not even local modifications
> are permitted if the 'is copy' property is missing.
>
>
>
HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
No, I think not, because the closure on the last line closes over a
read/write variable. It happens that read only reference to the same variable
is passed into the subroutine, but that's fine, because the subroutine never
writes to *its* reference.
So, you argue t
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 01:10:44PM -0500, Mike Li wrote:
> what is a good translation of the following C into perl6?
[snip]
>
> in perl5, i would've written something like:
>
>
> my $x = 0; my @y = 1..9; @y[$x++]++; print "$x\n"; print "@y\n"
>
>
> but in perl6, the '@' sigil always means list
My gut-level feeling on this is that $! is going to end up being an
"env" variable like $_. (If you don't know what "env" is then you've
not read the conjectural parts of S2 lately.) Then the problem reduces
to what you do with an unhandled $! at the end of a lexical scope,
which is probably just
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:54:25AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I wonder if there is a macroey thing that we can do here. That is,
> could we make:
>
> ok(1);
> is(1, 1);
> like("foo", /foo/);
>
> Into:
>
> ok(1);
> ok(1 == 1);
> ok("foo" ~~ /foo/);
>
> And lexically ana
Nathan Gray:
> Luke Palmer:
>> I wonder if there is a macroey thing that we can do here. That is,
>> could we make:
>>
>> ok(1);
>> is(1, 1);
>> like("foo", /foo/);
>>
>> Into:
>>
>> ok(1);
>> ok(1 == 1);
>> ok("foo" ~~ /foo/);
>>
>> And lexically analyze the argument
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 07:54 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I wonder if there is a macroey thing that we can do here. That is,
> could we make:
>
> ok(1);
> is(1, 1);
> like("foo", /foo/);
>
> Into:
>
> ok(1);
> ok(1 == 1);
> ok("foo" ~~ /foo/);
Can you do it without givin
12 matches
Mail list logo
