We pronounce it something similar to "way way way".
>
>
> Personally, I've always said it "dub dub dub".
>
> Dave
>
=
Austin Hastings
Global Services Consultant
Continuus Software Corporation
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
1, considering that they and their ramifying successors all
> seem to be in flagrant disagreement with you.
>
> In short, if foo.bar eq www.foo.bar, someone has high-jacked port 53.
>
> --tom
=
Austin Hastings
Global Services Consultant
Continuus Software Corporation
[EMAIL P
are different,
> and Perl imports a module that claims to but doesn't
> really support the "CGI" that I need?
>
>3. User dependency. How does this interact with 'use'?
> Does 'use' win? What if 'use' and 'needs&#x
couldn't we use the
> $, @,
> : and % characters?
> :
> : @foo = @a @+ @b;# element by element add
>
> Because it's difficult to tell the operators from the terms visually.
>
> Larry
=
Austin Hastings
Global Services Consultant
C
couldn't we use the
> $, @,
> : and % characters?
> :
> : @foo = @a @+ @b;# element by element add
>
> Because it's difficult to tell the operators from the terms visually.
>
> Larry
=
Austin Hastings
Global Services Consultant
C
Some of the objections have gone by, but what if you reverse the
quotes?
Make operator-in-quotes be a string operator (hell, make that true for
the other ops, too)
Perl 5 Perl 6
--- ---
-> .
+ +
. "+"
eq "=" or
h sending object thingies over a socket is a perfect
> thing to do with an event loop. just had to bring that up again. :)
>
> uri
>
> --
> Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
> http://www.sysarch.com
> SYStems ARCHitecture and Stem Development ------
>
t; (still waiting
> > > for "something original for a change").
> >
> > You are saying that the Clippy wasn't originally and truly
> annoying? :-)
>
> Something worthwhile and interesting?
>
> A benefit to mankind?
>
> ummm, Something tha
oString";
Or some such? The notion of $R.getData.toString is kind of lame...
=Austin
> >> Consider it a given that we'll be using . for dereferencing.
> (Possibly
> >> with -> as a synonym, just for Dan. :-)
> >>
> >> Larry
=
On a related note:
Suppose I have a function with a non-obvious arity: I might, in a
desperate attempt to find billable hours, describe the arity as a trait:
sub sandwich($bread, $meat, $cheese, $condiment1, $qty1, ...)
does arity ({ 3 + 2 * any(1..Inf); });
That's easy enough for trivi
Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
>
>> Cheers,
>> Joshua Gatcomb
>> a.k.a. Limbic~Region
>
>
> Oops... I hadn't noticed that you ARE L~R...
>
In the tradition of i18n, etc., I had assumed that L~R was shorthand for
Luke Palmer. You may want to keep up the old tradi
TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Yuval Kogman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 11:46:37 -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
>>
>>> The recent thread on Expectuations brought back to mind something
>>> I've been
>>> thinking for a while. In short, I propose that "use fatal" be on by
>>> default, and
>>> that
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Imagine you're writing an implementation of the unix "uniq" function:
>
>my $prev;
>for grep {defined} @in -> $x {
>print $x unless defined $prev && $x eq $prev;
>$prev = $x;
>}
>
> This feels clumsy. $prev seems to get in the way of what I'm trying
Luke Palmer wrote:
>>On 9/29/05, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
for grep {defined} @in -> $item, ?$next {
print $item unless defined $next && $item eq $next;
}
>>
>>
>
>>This is an interesting idea. Perhaps "for" (and "map") shift the
>>minimu
Matt Fowles wrote:
>Austin~
>
>On 9/29/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Plus it's hard to talk about backwards. If you say
>>
>>for @l -> ?$prev, $curr, ?$next {...}
>>
>>what happens when you have two items i
Yuval Kogman wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 13:52:54 -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>
[Bunches of stuff elided.]
>>A million years ago, $Larry pointed out that when we were able to use
>>'is just a' classifications on P6 concepts, it indicated that we were
>
TSa wrote:
>
> The view I believe Yuval is harboring is the one examplified
> in movies like The Matrix or The 13th Floor and that underlies
> the holodeck of the Enterprise: you can leave the intrinsic
> causality of the running program and inspect it. Usually that
> is called debugging. But this
Damian Conway wrote:
> Rather than addition Yet Another Feature, what's wrong with just using:
>
> for @list ¥ @list[1...] -> $curr, $next {
> ...
> }
>
> ???
1. Requirement to repeat the possibly complex expression for the list.
2. Possible high cost of generating the list.
3. Po
Damian Conway wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>> All of these have the same solution:
>>
>> @list = ...
>> for [undef, @list[0...]] ¥ @list ¥ [EMAIL PROTECTED], undef] -> $last, $curr,
>> $next {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> Which is al
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And that was never quite resolved. The biggest itch was with
>> operators that have no identity, and operators whose codomain is not
>> the same as the domain (like <, which takes numbers but returns
>> bools).
>>
>> Anyway, that syntax was
Yuval Kogman wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 14:27:30 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
>
>>On 10/6/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>when i can't open a file and $! tells me why i couldn't open, i
>>>can resume with an alternative handle that is supposed to be t
Yuval Kogman wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:31:12 -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>
>>Yuval Kogman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Stylistically I would tend to disagree, actually. I think it's cleaner to
>>>use exception handling for this.
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
>Hi,
>
>while fixing bugs for the imminent Pugs 6.2.10 release, we ran into
>several issues with magical pairs (pairs which unexpectedly participate
>in named binding) again. Based on Luke's "Demagicalizing pairs" thread
>[1], #perl6 refined the exact semantics [2].
>
>The
Stuart Cook wrote:
>On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>What about whitespace?
>>
>> foo (a => 42); # Note space
>>
>>Is that the first case (subcall with named arg) or the second case (sub
>>with positional p
Stuart Cook wrote:
>On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>The overrides have nothing to do with it. That a=>1 will *always* be a
>positional, because by the time it reaches the argument list, it's a value
>(not a syntactic form). The o
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> * expands its RHS and evaluate it as if it was written literally.
>>
>> I'd like @_ or @?ARGS or something like that to be a *-able array that
>> will be guaranteed to be compatible with the current sub's signature.
>>
> This sounds nice, tho
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
>Juerd wrote:
>
>
>>Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 20:08 (+0200):
>>
>>
>>>Named arguments can -- under the proposal -- only ever exist in
>>>calls.
>>>
>>>
>>Which leaves us with no basic datastructure that can hold both
>>positional and named arguments.
I retract my opposition to "err". After coding this:
try
{
try { path = f.getCanonicalPath(); }
catch (Exception e) { path = f.getAbsolutePath(); }
}
catch (Exception e) { path = f.toString(); }
I am now a convert. To the extent that we are
Luke Palmer wrote:
>There are two reasons I've posted to perl6-language this time. First
>of all, is this acceptable behavior? Is it okay to die before the
>arguments to an undefined sub are evaluated?
>
>
>
Something like:
widgetMethod new Widget;
The best argument I've got for forcing the
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Today I wrote some perl5 code for the umpteenth time. Basically:
>
> for( my $i=0; $i< $#ARGV; $i++ )
> {
> next unless $ARGV[$i] eq "-f";
> $i++;
> $ARGV[$i] = absolute_filename $ARGV[$i];
> }
> chdir "foo";
> exec "bar", @ARGV;
>
> I'm trying to work
Larry Wall wrote:
>Whatever the answer, it probably has to apply to
>
>my @a;
>@a[0] = '1';
>@a[2] = '3';
>print exists $a[1];
>
>as well as the explicit delete case. Are we going to pitch an exception for
>writing beyond the end of an array? That seems a bit anti-Perlish.
>
>
Rob Kinyon wrote:
>OOP is all about black-box abstraction. To that end, three items have been
>identified as being mostly necessary to achieve that:
>1) Polymorphism - aka Liskov substitutability
>2) Inheritance - aka specialization
>3) Encapsulation
>
>P5 excels at #1, does #2 ok, an
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
> I really prefer the form where .#() looks like a no-op method
> call, and can provide the visual dot for a postfix extender. It
> also is somewhat less likely to happen by accident the #., I
> think. And I think the front-end shape of .# is more
> recognizab
Damian Conway wrote:
I'm not enamoured of the .# I must confess. Nor of the #. either. I
wonder whether we need the dot at all. Or, indeed, the full power of
arbitrary delimiters after the octothorpe.
What if we restricted the delimiters to the five types of balanced
brackets? And then simpl
Audrey Tang wrote:
>Damian Conway wrote:
>
>
>>Juerd wrote:
>>
>>
and propose ".:" as a solution
>>>$xyzzy.:foo();
>>>$fooz. :foo();
>>>$foo. :foo();
>>>
>>>
>>This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>>
>> foo. :bar()
>>
>>and:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what reduce operators do in list c
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add
this to
: the lan
Smylers wrote:
Mark A. Biggar writes:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
# bool::false?
# (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::false, bool::false)
(And I'm with Smylers on this one: show me a useful example, p
Jonathan Lang wrote:
What got me thinking about this was that I couldn't find decent
documentation about Capture literals in the synopses.
Are Capture literals going to replace or unify the "assuming"/"currying"
behaviors?
=Austin
Thomas Wittek wrote:
chromatic wrote:
theproblemlinguisticallyspeakingisthatsometimes [snipped]
I can't remember that I said that you shouldn't separate your
expressions (by punctation/whitspaces),
$.but! (*adding$ %*characters _+that^# &$might) @#not_ !#be()
!&necessary_ *#$doesn't! *
Darren Duncan wrote:
Larry had some ideas for dealing with the problem, but this is a
matter that should be more widely discussed, particularly among
implementers and such.
A general thought is that a parameter could be marked so that any
argument passed through it is effectively snapshot (
Jonathan makes an excellent point about s and S. In fact, there's
probably a "little language" out there for this.
I don't think it needs to be in the core, though. But you could put in
some kind of "hook" mechanism, so that detecting the presence of \s or
whatever caused the string to be trea
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
chromatic chromatic-at-wgz.org |Perl 6| wrote:
All classes imply the existence of a role of the same name.
Please justify that.
A class is an defined, referenceable entity with a "signature" composed
of the bits visible to a particular caller. It is possible, by
d
TSa wrote:
BTW, what is a flack?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flak_%28disambiguation%29
Originally, (FL)ug(a)bwehr (K)anone -- German 88mm anti-aircraft cannon
of WWII.
Subsequently, any anti-air gun or cannon, particularly when fired at a
position rather than aimed at a particular
At a minimum, there are more multi-word identifiers than there are
statements involving subtraction. Further, '-' is basic, while all of
[_A-Z] are not.
Ergo, a multi-word-identifier is easier to type than a
multi_word_identifier or a multiWordIdentifier.
The older I get, the more I like Cob
That sounds cool. Did you do it at the editor level, or at the keyboard
level?
=Austin
Bob Rogers wrote:
From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:07:33 -0400
I'm still somewhat ambivalent about this, myself. My previous
experience with hyphens in identif
Actually, I proposed some years ago allowing "separable verbs" --
function/method/operator names with spaces in them, that could in fact
bracket or intersperse themselves with other parameters.
This would be a way of writing "if ... elsif ... else ..." for example.
I wonder if whitespace in id
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Actually that makes me wonder now whether it’s actually a good
idea at all to make the function parametrisable at all. Even
`.ltrim.rtrim` is shorter and easier than `.trim(:start,:end)`!
How about .trim(:l, :r) with both as the default? And if the rtl crowd
makes
If you haven't read the PDD, it's a good start.
To summarize, probably oversimplifying badly:
1. A grapheme is a character *as seen on the page.* That is, if
composing "a" + "dot above" + "dot below" produces an a with dots above
and below it, then THAT is the grapheme.
2. Unicode has a lot
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:11 AM, Austin Hastings
wrote:
If you haven't read the PDD, it's a good start.
I get all that, really. I still question the necessity of mapping
each grapheme to a single integer. A single *value*, sure.
length($weird_graphe
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 18, 2009, at 14:16 , Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:11:32AM +0200, Helmut Wollmersdorfer wrote:
3) Details of 'life-time', round-trip.
Which is a very interesting topic, with connections to type theory,
scope/domain management, and security
Larry Wall wrote:
Which is a very interesting topic, with connections to type theory,
scope/domain management, and security issues (such as the possibility
of a DoS attack on the translation tables).
I think that a DoS attack on Unicode would be called "IBM/Windows Code
Pages." The rest of
You write:
> I’m not sure what the heart of Perl 6 would be, but I think we’ve
identified the spleen
> with the |Capture|. In the human body, most people have no idea what
the spleen does.
> It sits there out of the way doing its thing, and we can’t live
without it.
I, along with a host of o
Jon Lang wrote:
Agreed. Given the frequency with which « and » come up in Perl 6, I'd
love to be able to have a simple keyboard shortcut that produces these
two characters. Unfortunately, I am often stuck using a Windows
system when coding; and the easiest method that I have available to me
th
I'm using the PGE/PCT tools for working with grammars on Parrot, and I
have to say that while there's a lot of power, there's very little
debugging support. What's more, the debugging that is possible seems to
be "parrot debugging" --i.e., single-stepping through routines, etc. --
instead of "g
Sorry, didn't do a reply-all on this.
--- Begin Message ---
How about "Parrot"?
I think the original point, along with one of the original claims for
Parrot, was that Parrot would not just be the "Perl internals engine"
but would be general enough to run other languages. (Specifically, there
Howdy,
One of the "problems" in recursive-descent parsing is constructs that
look a lot alike at the front, only to differ at the end -- a sort of
end-weight pathology. The example I'm thinking of is the similarity
between variable and function declarations in 'C'.
extern int foo = 0;
David Green wrote:
It occurs to me that "log" is a pretty short name for a function I
rarely use. (In fact, I'm not sure I've ever used it in perl.) On
the other hand, I -- and a thousand or so CPAN modules -- are always
logging stuff in that other popular computer sense. (All right, that
n
Mark J. Reed wrote:
I'm all for not having any variety of log() in the default namespace.
Regardless, mathematical functions should follow mathematical norms.
Changing Perl tradition is one thing, but we have centuries, sometimes
millennia, of tradition to deal with in the mathematical realm. It
S05 mentions the magic pattern in two locations, but I cannot
find a specification of the interaction between and the
ratcheting {rule/token} status.
Specifically, is
token {
...
}
going to match the same pattern as
rule {
...
}
??
I ask because (I just did it, and) with rules enco
How about "Rake"?
=Austin
Richard Hainsworth wrote:
Referring to Patrick's blog about an official 'useable' version of
Rakudo, a suggestion:
Since Rakudo* (not sure how it is to be written) is intended to be a
cut-down version of perl6.0.0 that is useable, how about Rakudo-lite?
Its just
This whole thread seems oriented around two points:
1. Strings should not carry the burden of umpty-ump filesystem checking
methods.
2. It should be possible to specify a filesystem entity using something
nearly indistinguishable from standard string syntax.
I agree with the first, but the
I'm writing some NQP, which isn't quite perl6, and I've got this method:
method afterall_methods() {
my @methods := self._afterall_methods;
unless @methods {
@methods := self.fetch_afterall_methods;
self._afterall_methods(@methods);
}
re
Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 18:58 -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
I know that I could 'metaprogram' this stuff by using string
manipulation on the various method names, and then calling a
(self-built) call_method($obj, $method_name, ...args...) function.
This is a p6 question, not an NQP question - I'm citing the NQP only
because it's my current example. So mentioning p6 features not currently
in NQP is totally appropriate.
What I mean by converting code into data is simply that a run-time
version of metaprogramming will generally translate the
Howdy,
I've been doing a bunch of NQP and PIR coding, where Pmichaud++ has been
trying to support some kind of POD syntax. With the release of the S26
draft, he has tightened the parsing to follow more of the rules laid out
in the spec, and after a few months, I've noticed that the trend (for
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:15:57AM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, June 13, 2003, at 10:26 PM, David Storrs wrote:
> >
> > >my $a = 'foo';
> > >my Int $b = $a;# legal; $b is now 0; is there a warning?
> > >my
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or, if we have "output rules" just like we have "input rules", could
> something quite complex be expressed simply as:
>
> "You have <$x as MoneyFormat>"
>
> having previously defined your MoneyFormat "formatting rule" in some
> other locat
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 16, 2003, at 11:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Or, if we have "output rules" just like we have "input rules",
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 11:37:06AM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > [...]
> > But there is broad support for the idea that the somewhat elderly
> > printf syntax is a PITA, and that printf, in general, should be
> > completely unnecessary since we a
This idea seems to fit in a lot of places. It's more of a design
pattern than anything else, but one I think P6 can use to good effect
in the "standard library".
Lightweight Object Existance (LOE) Proxies
An LOE proxy is an object that proxies for another, heavier, object
that (maybe) doesn't ex
--- Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This wasn't quite what I was thinking about. I was more for typing
> laziness (and avoiding cut&paste) - I'd like a default for the
> instance initialiser, but only to be used (by the compiler's code
> generator) if I don't specify a specific initial
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jonadab the Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Does this imply, though, that it's pointing to specific elements,
>
> Wow, I wasn't paying attention to what I was thinking there.
> Obviously it points to specific elements,
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:52:04PM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> >
> > --- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Am I now thinking clearly?
> > >
> > I don't think so.
&g
--- Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > Parsers with Pre-processors
> > I didn't quite understand what Dave Whipp was driving at when
> > he talked about overloading the "" pattern as a way of doing
> > preprocessing of Perl 6 patterns. I didn't und
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:19:11PM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Likewise:
> >
> > my $fh = open " >
> > $fh =~ / > = Grammars::Languages::Runoff::tbl(input_method
> >
--- Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Austin Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > $.source = (new
> Grammars::Language::C::Preprocessor).open($source);
>
> I find myself wondering if this is covered by the P6 equiv of
> TieHandl
> We're not quite in the world of ACME::DWIM, so you can't just replace
> the important stuff with ... . :-)
Maybe, but the C preprocessor isn't important, here, for itself. Otherwise I
could cheat:
grammar Grammar::Language::C::Preprocessor {
rule CompilationUnit {
FIRST { static
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 08:49 AM, David Wheeler wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 05:57 PM, chromatic wrote:
> >
> >> The first is a deeper question -- besides inheritance, there's
> >> delegation, aggregation, and reimplementation (t
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2003, at 11:17 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> >> No, I think Java interfaces are a kluge to get around copying a
> >> broken type system and the lack of multiple inheritance.
> >
> > Mult
--- Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To take the E6 example of currying &part:
>
>&List::Part::part.assuming(labels => <>)
>
> One had to curry in C to be the same as it was defined in
> C<&part>
> originally, i.e. C<< <> >>.
>
> What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default i
:
> In a message dated Thu, 31 Jul 2003, Austin Hastings writes:
> > assuming(labels => undef)
>
> Okay... I think you're wrong, because this would have to be a special
> case
> (defaults take effect only when *nothing* is passed in, not when the
> argument is un
--- "Abhijit A. Mahabal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In E6 Damien writes about macros:
>
> "As soon as it has parsed that subroutine call (including its
> argument
> list) it will detect that the subroutine &request is actually a
> macro, so
> it will immidiately call &request with the specified
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Actually, in Perl 6, they'll do that anyway. Scope in loops is
> strictly defined by the location of the braces WRT the location of
> "my". That is:
>
> while (my $x = somefunc()) { ... }
> # $x still in scope
Based on current experience, I'd say about three years after the start
of development for perl7.
=Austin
--- Alberto Manuel Brandão_Simões <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi
>
> Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for
> Perl6,
> I mean, they are subject to change. Is there
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > Actually, in Perl 6, they'll do that anyway. Scope in loops is
> > > strictly defined
Fwd from Luke -- he's adopted a retarded MUA.
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:22:05 -0600
> From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Perl 6's for() signature
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > And yo
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Burr writes:
> > But I confidently predict that no-one with write a useful
> > partial evaluator for perl6. The language is simply too big.
>
> Then again, there are some very talented people with a lot of free
> time in the Perl community; I wou
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 11:33 , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course having a "no subclasses" tag means the compiler can
--- Gordon Henriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Storrs wrote:
>
> > This discussion seems to contain two separate problems, and I'm not
> > always sure which one is being addressed. The components I see
> are:
> >
> > 1) Detecting when the assumptions have been violated and the code
> h
--- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> chromatic wrote:
> > The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly
> say
> > "Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this
> application"
> > at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
> > applica
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 07:49 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a potential keyword, or perhaps a ubiquitous method, or
> > both. But how to differentiate "sealed under optimization" versus
>
--- Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With Perl6, few people will compile whole librairies but most
> will load bytecode. At this late stage there is little place for
> tunable optimization except JITting or it would defeat the
> sharing of such code between different intances of Perl
So I sit here and think for a minute about how nice it will be in P6 to
be able to define
operator infix:eqi($str1, $str2) {...}
for doing
if ($1 eqi "last")
and I think about the whole 'C' string library. Which dredges up my old
questions about parameterized operators:
How can I convenie
> -Original Message-
> From: Eirik Berg Hanssen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pondering parameterized operators
>
>
> Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hmm, since we're requiring no whitespace bet
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, that's true. But note that you can't do that black magic you
> were
> speaking of earlier:
>
> $a [ (cond ?? &infix:+ : &infix:*) but tighter(&infix:*) ] $b
>
> Because we can't choose the precedence of an operator after we parse
> it... un
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
> > > but
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
> To: Jeff Clites
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Block Returns
>
>
> Jeff Clites writes:
> > >Speaking to the practical side, I have written code
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Control flow variables
>
>
> I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> reminded me of something I see rather often i
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: Austin Hastings
> Cc: Language List
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > Luke Palmer wrote:
&g
1 - 100 of 508 matches
Mail list logo
