On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15.40, Joe Gottman wrote:
>This is unrelated to the problem you mentioned, but there is another
> annoying problem with sort as it is currently defined. If you have an
> @array and you want to replace it with the sorted version, you have to type
> @array = sort @array;
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10.51, Damian Conway wrote:
> There are also cases where something like:
>
> $a ||= $b;
>
> or:
>
> $a += $b;
>
> changes the type of value in $a. Should we flag those too? Currently we do
> warn on the second one if $a can't be cleanly coerced to numeric. Would
> th
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05.30, John Siracusa wrote:
> The only case that seems even
> remotely onerous is this one:
>
> my My::Big::Class::Name $obj = My::Big::Class::Name.new();
> vs.
> my My::Big::Class::Name $obj .= new()
There's also the related issue of in-place operations on some
di
Mark Lentczner wrote:
Awhile back, I saw Larry Wall give a short talk about the current design
of Perl 6. At some point he put up a list of all the operators - well
over a hundred of them! I had a sudden inspiration, but it took a few
months to get around to drawing it...
http://www.ozoneho
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07.25, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I cannot open a file for writing (permissions, out of space,
> > write locked, etc), I want to know the instant I attempt to open it
> > as such, _not_ when I later attempt to write to it. Having al
Piers Cawley wrote:
One of the 'mental apps' that's been pushing some of the things I've been
asking for in Perl 6's introspection system is a combined
refactoring/debugging/editing environment for the language. One of the
annoyances of the 'only perl can parse Perl' thing is not so much the trut
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13.19, Joe Gottman wrote:
> > Juerd asked:
> > >>2+ args: interpolate specified operator
> > >>1 arg: return that arg
> > >>0 args: fail (i.e. thrown or unthrown exception depending on use
> > fatal)
> >
> > > Following this logic, does join(" ", @foo) with [EMAIL
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19.37, Damian Conway wrote:
> Deborah Pickett wrote:
> > Someone please convince me otherwise.
> So what you want is not an identity value as default (which isn't even
> possible for many operators, as Luke pointed out), but a predictable
> failure value
