Author: larry
Date: Mon Apr 10 21:39:58 2006
New Revision: 8645
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Outlawed 42. (but inlawed .42)
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 03:49:45AM +0200, herbert breunung wrote:
: hello perlisticers
:
: (my first post)
: i read in the perl6 book second edition something called
:
: /Integer context/ and /Numeric context/
:
: Ican understand the difference but since nowhere in the synopses i read
: a word
HaloO,
I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
as far as the range operator is concerned. Since the whole point
of the long dot is to support alignment styles the following cases
shouldn't mean different things:
foobar #0 single call to foobar (OK, that is diffe
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 12:41:30PM +0200, TSa wrote:
: I'm unsure what the outcome of the recent long dot discussions is
: as far as the range operator is concerned.
.. is always the range operator. The "dot wedge" just has a discontinuity
in it there. I can't think of any wedgey applications th
Folks,
I found this when I was playing w/ pugs.
pugs> { $^x }.(42)
42
pugs> { my $z; $^x }.(42)
*** Undeclared variable: "$^x"
at line 1, column 10-14
So far as I see s06, there's nothing wrong w/ the statement above. I
just want to make sure this is not a perl6 feature.
I found this
Dan Kogai wrote:
> I found this when I was playing w/ pugs.
>
> pugs> { $^x }.(42)
> 42
> pugs> { my $z; $^x }.(42)
> *** Undeclared variable: "$^x"
> at line 1, column 10-14
>
> So far as I see s06, there's nothing wrong w/ the statement above. I
> just want to make sure this is not a perl
