HaloO,
happy new year to Everybody!
Luke Palmer wrote:
Env variables are implicitly passed up through any number of call
frames.
Interesting to note that you imagine the call chain to grow upwards
where I would say 'implicitly passed down'. Nevertheless I would
also think of upwards beeing th
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
I think that deep copying is rare enough in practice that it should
be dehuffmanized to .deepcopy, perhaps with optional arguments saying
how deep.
So perhaps .copy:deep then?
Simple shallow copy is .copy, whereas .clone is a .bless
variant that will copy based on
HaloO Eric,
you wrote:
#strictly outside
($a > 3..6) === (3 > $a > 6) === (3 > $a || $a > 6)
Just looking at that hurts my head, how can $a be smaller than three
and larger than 6? That doesn't make even a little since.
To my twisted brain it does ;)
The idea is that
outside === !i
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
In fact, it might even bug me more. I'm a proponent of the idea that
one name (in a particular scope) is one concept. We don't overload +
to mean "concatenation", we don't overload << to mean "output", and we
don't overload > to mean "outside".
I agree. And have con
HaloO,
Austin Frank wrote:
It seems to me like these are related contexts-- arguments to a sub are
supposed to fulfill its parameter list. This makes the overloading of
prefix:<*> confusing to me.
Would an explicit type List help?
I'm pretty sure we don't need slurpiness in argument lists,
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
...
[1] This is one of my quibbles with junctions, too.
You mean the
On 1/2/06, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I have no idea for this nice syntax, yet. Perhaps something like
>
>my &junc = any(1,2,3);
>my $val = 1;
>
>if junc( &infix:<==>, $val ) {...}
>
> which is arguably clumsy.
I don't think anyone would waste his time arguing that. :-)
> T
