HaloO,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$_ $xType of Match ImpliedMatching Code
== = ==
+ Set Set members identicalmatch if $_ === $x
> + Array Set array equivalent to set match if Set($_) === $x
I
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Would (1,2,2,3,4,4) be a Seq or a Bag?
Comma constructs a Seq, of course.
IMHO, the _only_ way this
could work would be if it's a Bag: if it's a Seq, I see no way that
one could resolve '(1,2,3) ∪ (3,1,2)'.
This is not any different from '3' + '4' resulting in
Hi,
I think a partial unification of objects and code refs in userspace
is going to be a nice features.
Closures allow people to put arbitrary complexity into a very simple
api that is, in OO terms, just one method (the actual function
call).
Consequentially the closure may never reveal any info
TSa wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Would (1,2,2,3,4,4) be a Seq or a Bag?
Comma constructs a Seq, of course.
The context of the question was that you provided the above as the
result of unioning two Seqs; as such, I was trying to find out whether
you meant that the union of two Seqs should be a
If I follow what you're saying (and this is by no means a certainty :)
I would tend to look more for a declarative solution than a callback
solution, so I'm imagining that any closure could have a declarator
that explicitly captures an outside lexical and makes it available
as an attribute. I don'
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 09:43:40AM +0100, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >$_ $xType of Match ImpliedMatching Code
: >== = ==
: >+ Set Set members identicalmatch if $_ === $x
: > + Ar
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 09:13:42 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> my $x = 42;
> &f := sub {
> have $.x;
> say $x;
> ...
> }
> say &f.x;
hmm... That looks nice.
Maybe even this makes sense:
sub {
have $.x;
method blah { }
