Excuse my ignorance of the finer points, but I thought the reason for
bless's continued existence was so that the same sort of brilliant OO
experimentation that Damian and others have done with pure Perl 5 can
continue to be done in pure Perl 6 without having to hack p6opaque?
Trey
In a message dated Mon, 17 Apr 2006, Sean Sieger writes:
from
There are no C or C modifiers (changes to the meta-characters
replace them - see below).
to
There are no C or C modifiers (change to the meta-characters
that replace them - see below).
I don't think so There are no meta-char
In a message dated Sun, 30 Apr 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whitespace in the middle may include any of the comment forms above.
-Because comments always count as whitespace, the dots in
+Because comments always count as whitespace, the C<\.> in
-$object.#{ foo }.say
+$object\#{ f
In a message dated Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
But would it be reasonable to also provide a named-only parameter to
each for that purpose?
our List multi Container::each(Bool :$stop, Container [EMAIL PROTECTED])
So that:
for each(:stop, =<>; 1..*) -> ($line, $lineno) {
say "$line
In a message dated Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:53 -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
It sounds reasonable to me, but :stop reads badly. Maybe C<:strictly>?
Maybe it's not a function of a flag to each, but a marking that certain
lists should be
In a message dated Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Ruud H.G. van Tol writes:
Larry Wall schreef:
Maybe we should just make statement modifiers
uppercase and burn out everyone's eye sockets. :)
Or maybe
{
}.
while $x ;
Actually, can't that be made to work already (already by the language
spec, not
In a message dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Daniel Hulme writes:
Sorry to patch the patch, but in
-Other sigils binds only to the I argument with that name:
+Other sigil binds only to the I argument with that name:
the replacement makes no more sense than the original. "Other sigils
bind" or "Any othe
In a message dated Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
But, assuming for the moment that C autoloads C,
does that mean that
class Dog is Mammal-4.5
is valid?
Yes, it must be valid. See
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S11.html#Versioning :
So you can just say
m
Oops, Luke Palmer alerted me to the fact that I screwed up in the below.
In a message dated Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Trey Harris writes:
My question is, if a program is running where two versions of Dog are loaded,
say 1.3.4 and 2.1, and a file contains:
use Dog-1.3.4-cpan:JRANDOM;
class Poodle
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Mark J. Reed writes:
I think the justification for Luke's POV is the number of operations
each class provides. But my perspective agrees with Juerd -
subclasses can remove functionality as well as adding it, and I
definitely view "constant" as an add-on modi
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, jerry gay writes:
perhaps trey meant "subclasses can add constraints as well as
functionality" instead of "subclasses can remove functionality as well
as adding it."
just a guess.
~jerry
Ok... same thing from a DBC perspective. Subclasses can add functiona
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Mark J. Reed writes:
On 8/25/06, Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> subclasses can remove functionality as well as adding it
Can someone suggest some reading I can do to understand how that works?
I can't wrap my head around the idea
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Mark J. Reed writes:
OK, I admit I wasn't thinking about things from a DBC perspective, and
misunderstood "DBC" to be a reference to some database module. I here
am new and I didn't have context. My bad.
But if we're talking design-by-contract, I don't see
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Juerd writes:
Trey Harris skribis 2006-08-25 11:33 (-0700):
Ok... same thing from a DBC perspective. Subclasses can add functionality
(by AND'ing postconditions), or remove constraints (by OR'ing
preconditions), but they can't tradi
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Daniel Hulme writes:
If "changing that functionality beyond recognition" means changing its
external behavior (as opposed to its internal behavior) so that it
acts differently from what the superclass had promised to do, then
no, it's not any weirder--but I
In a message dated Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Juerd writes:
Trey Harris skribis 2006-08-25 13:26 (-0700):
Explain to me how "nontraditional" DBC might work in an internally
consistent way. Otherwise, this is hand-waving. :-)
Perl *is* hand-waving.
Yeah, but hand-waving on how it m
In a message dated Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Mark Stosberg writes:
Regarding The S06 description of named arguments:
http://feather.perl6.nl/syn/S06.html#Named_arguments
What I find missing here is documentation of the signature to use
if you want to declare "I accept an arbitrary number of named
argu
In a message dated Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Mark Stosberg writes:
my $rm = sub { given $rm_param {
when Code { $rm_param(self) }
when Hash { %rm_param }
default{ self.query.param($rm_param) }
}}();
This is eerily like Contextual::Return, which made me wonder if it's eve
In a message dated Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Juerd writes:
Hm. I don't know how "but" works exactly, but in the realm of syntactic
sugar, this is appealing:
$foo but s/foo/bar/
I like it.
This should be easy to make work in theory, but for the problem with
C's semantics which I'll get to in a mom
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Juerd writes:
Trey Harris skribis 2006-09-01 0:17 (-0700):
I think these semantics are Almost Right, but yet Entirely Wrong. The
problem is that C reads to me as a *mutating* operator. That is, I
would expect the above code snippet to give me a C<$z.y&
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Paul Seamons writes:
I'm not sure if I have seen this requested or discussed.
This was definitively rejected by Larry in 2002:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9343
He has not revisited the issue in the several times it has come up since.
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2006, jerry gay writes:
On 9/1/06, Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Paul Seamons writes:
> I'm not sure if I have seen this requested or discussed.
This was definitively rejected by Larry
In a message dated Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Ph. Marek writes:
I now had a look at http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S06.html
but didn't find what I meant. Sorry if I'm just dumb and don't
understand you (or S06); I'll try to explain what I mean.
I don't think you're dumb; the Synopses just requ
markstos++ pointed out the following behavior:
use v6-alpha;
{
when 1 ~~ 0 {
say "Surprise!"
}
}
This code prints "Surprise!", because $_ is undef, which is false, just
like 1 ~~ 0 is.
I'd like to make the following suggestions for Synopsis clarification:
1. It will be a
In a message dated Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Mark Stosberg writes:
To refine this point a bit, the spec is clear that 'when' is useful not
just with 'given' but with "any block that sets $_".
Thanks, I was not being terribly precice when I conflated when with given.
Of course, CATCH is another case whe
In a message dated Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Darren Duncan writes:
Putting aside legacy issues for the moment,
I suggest that it might be appropriate to rename the .grep list operator to
.where, so we can say, for example:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be writt
In a message dated Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Markus Laire writes:
On 9/19/06, Trey Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In a message dated Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Darren Duncan writes:
> @filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be written:
@filtered = any(@originals)
From S06:
sub bar ($a,$b,$c,:$mice) { say $mice }
sub foo (\$args) { say $args.perl; &bar.call($args); }
The C<.call> method of C objects accepts a single C
object, and calls it without introducing a C frame.
And from S12:
In addition to C, the special function C dispatches
In a message dated Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Larry Wall writes:
The obvious ASCII for ¢ would be c/ or C/ or c| or c| or maybe just |.
I like ¢,but:
c/$foo # ASCII of ¢$foo
d/$foo # d() divided by $foo
is rather confusing. (Same goes for |).
So the Term Term exclusion makes me rather lean tow
Oops, I hate typos that result in my writing exactly the opposite of what
I meant:
In a message dated Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Trey Harris writes:
In a message dated Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Larry Wall writes:
The obvious ASCII for ¢ would be c/ or C/ or c| or c| or maybe just |.
I like ¢,but:
c/$foo
In a message dated Wed, 27 Sep 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
Any thoughts?
I'm still thinking about the practical implications of this... but what
immediately occurs to me:
The point of multiple, as opposed to single, dispatch (well, one of the
points, and the only point that matters when we'
In a message dated Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Actually, it's a promise made by a package (not a class) to meet the
> specification given by a role (which can, and in this case probably
> does, reside in a separate fil
In a message dated Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
First the high-level point: I'm dropping the RFC, because, as TimToady
pointed out on IRC, we're not quite far enough down the line to see the
breadth or certainty of the need yet.
Yes, but I don't think the conversation should stop.
In a message dated Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Jonathan Lang writes:
while roles can be abstract, classes and packages should not be.
Really? I think I need to let that sink in and percolate a bit.
I'm rather fond of creating abstract superclasses to factor out common
object-management code. I have m
In a message dated Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
[snip]
However, that's not to say that a class can't be abstract, just that a
class that does an interface (a role with nothing but abstract meth
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always "No library
designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast or strict my
program has to run." Whatever B&D you do in the privacy of your own modules
is fine, but if it
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, jesse writes:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:01:22PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
The point is that the person writing the program decides which handcuffs or
costumes all of the code has to wear, not the person writing the libraries.
If you want to set a policy for you
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Jonathan Lang writes:
In Perl 6, the abstract SystemMonitor could be a role, and a concrete
ScriptedMonitor could be a class that does SystemMonitor, but it's not at
all clear to me what HardwareMonitor would be, since classes can't be
abstract and roles can't
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Smylers writes:
Trey Harris writes:
I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules
floating around that required you to do "no strict" of various flavors
in order to use them.
Really? How?
I wrote imprecisely. Not to &qu
In a message dated Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Jonathan Lang writes:
Since Baz does both Foo and Bar, you cannot use type-checking to
resolve this dilemma.
Why not? Why shouldn't this work:
my Foo $obj1 = getBaz(); # object is a Baz
$obj1.baz(); # Foo::baz is called
my Bar $obj2 =
In a message dated Wed, 25 Oct 2006, TSa writes:
from the recent threads 'class interface of roles', 'set operations for
roles' and 'signature subtyping and role merging' I wonder how typish
roles actually are. Some seem to consider roles as lightweight particles
that serve to compose classes.
In a message dated Sat, 28 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
When you specify a type to constrain some operation, you specify that
the target entity must perform that role.
That statement is very concise and direct. If the fuzziness I observed
about the identity of the basic building block of type w
In a message dated Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Trey Harris writes:
In a message dated Sat, 28 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
When you specify a type to constrain some operation, you specify that the
target entity must perform that role.
That statement is very concise and direct. If the fuzziness I
In a message dated Tue, 4 Dec 2007, cdumont writes:
oh, it might not be relevant in many ways but :
http://iamseb.com/seb/2007/12/perl-on-rails-why-the-bbc-fails-at-the-internet/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/radiolabs/2007/11/perl_on_rails.shtml
There's one thing I would like perl6 to shine in,
In a message dated Thu, 3 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
+But these bindings I autovivify:
my %hash;
my $val := %hash;
my @array;
-my $obj = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # $obj is a Capture object - see S02
+my $cap = [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # $obj is a Capture object - see S02
+m
In a message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Richard Hainsworth writes:
May I suggest the following extension to the 'use ' pragma, viz.
use in constrained by local system>
Oh please, no.
The entire point of the wording currently in the synopsis is so that we
can have platform-independent location o
Sorry, quoting myself...
In a message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Trey Harris writes:
given $?OS {
when m:i:/win/ { use Foo in WinFoo.pm }
when m:i:/nix/ { use Foo in UnixLikeFoo.pm }
}
It strikes me that $?OS and $?OSVER should probably not be strings (as
they now are in Pugs) and
In a message dated Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Larry Wall writes:
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:42:06AM -0500, Trey Harris wrote:
So $?OS isn't "the type of OS", it's *the OS*, and you can manipulate the
OS through it.
Note that $?OS is the OS that is-or-was running at compile time,
wh
In a message dated Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Moritz Lenz writes:
Paul Fenwick perltraining.com.au> writes:
for ($foo) {
when ($_ < 500) { ++$_ }
when ($_ > 1000) { --$_ }
default { say "Just right $_" }
}
Ahh... that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.
Make
To loop back to my earlier question:
In Perl 5.10:
use strict;
use warnings;
use feature qw(switch say);
my $foo = 10;
for ($foo) {
when ($foo < 50) { $_++ }
}
say "for: $foo";
$foo = 10;
given ($foo) {
when ($foo < 50) { $_++ }
}
say
In a message dated Thu, 26 Jun 2008, Moritz Lenz writes:
I assume that 'Num' is meant to be a non-complex.
Then it seems to make sense to assume:
Int is Rat
Rat is Num
Num is Complex
or am I off again?
S29 seems to have been assuming this, if I'm reading the multis correctly.
--Junction is a sister of Any, not a subtype of Any. That's how
you get the autothreading--accept Any or a subtype thereof, and when
you get a junction, you autothread. Accept Junction or Object and you
can inspect the junction directly.
At least, that's how *I* think it wo
g
"nothing" (different from "assuming nothing"), so that if List::Part::part
changed its default for C to C<< <> >>, the client
code would pick that up?
--
Trey Harris
Vice President
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
ght... if I want to pass
undef to labels, what would I write?
--
Trey Harris
Vice President
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
call to key().
Trey
--
Trey Harris
Vice President
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
ies to everyone who just wants to restate some new wrinkle of a point
already discussed to death.)
Trey
--
Trey Harris
Vice President
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
Can anyone explain the rules of placeholder attachment? i.e., in the
example in Perl6::Placeholder's manpage,
grep { $data{$^value} } 1..10;
C<$^value> is clearly intended to attach to the outer closure C<{
$data{$^value} }>, not the inner closure C<{$^value}>. But how does the
compiler know?
In a message dated Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Larry Wall writes:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 04:48:05AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : Trey Harris writes:
> : > Can anyone explain the rules of placeholder attachment? i.e., in the
> : > example in Perl6::Placeholder's manpage,
>
In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
> What does pick return on hashes? Does it return a random value or a
> random pair? (I suppose returning a pair is more useful.)
I'd assume in all cases that pick returns an *alias*, and in the case of
hashes, an alias to the pair:
I'd assume you'd get an *alias* to a random pair:
# Test error-correction
for 1..$entropy_threshhold {
%hash.pick.value = rand $scribble_factor;
}
Trey
In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
> Hi,
>
>
> I remembered Damian saying that pick does not only work on
In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
> What does pick return on hashes? Does it return a random value or a
> random pair? (I suppose returning a pair is more useful.)
I'd assume in all cases that pick returns an *alias*, and in the case of
hashes, an alias to the pair:
Yikes. Sorry about the ressends... my email client kept dying and I
thought the mail was lost. Guess not. :-)
Trey
In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Trey Harris writes:
> In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
> > What does pick return on hashes? Does it
o
anything so crass as checking whether my first parameter is defined...)
--
Trey Harris
Secretary and Executive
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Ashley Winters writes:
> Would it would be reasonable to have given default to the caller's topic?
>
> sub printRec {
> given {
> # $_ is now the caller's topic in this scope
> }
> }
>
> Perhaps C would work as well.
Yes, something like that wo
In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> Couldn't you do it with old-style Perl5 subs?
>
> sub printRec {
> my $p = chomp(shift // $_);
> print ":$_:\n"
> }
>
> Or am _I_ missing something?
That definitely won't work (aside from the $p/$_ swap which I assume is
unintentional
Oops, caught my own mistake...
In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Trey Harris writes:
> In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> > sub printRec {
> > my $p = chomp(shift // $_);
> > print ":$_:\n"
> > }
[Should be equivalent to]
&
In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Glenn Linderman writes:
> $_ becomes lexical
> $_ gets aliased to the first topic of a given clause (hence changes
> value more often, but the lexical scoping helps reduce that impact)
Okay. But it sounds like you're saying that C, and C only,
introduces a to
ure @_ gets flattened?
Trey
--
Trey Harris
Secretary and Executive
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
to state that this black, if it were only just a bit
brighter, would be green:
$foo = Color.black but green;
I think that "black has green" just sounds plain weird. "but" is
absolutely perfect, Larry. I say keep it.
Trey
--
Trey Harris
Secretary and Executive
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.
In a message dated Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> > before { ... } # run before first iteration, only if there is at
> >least one iteration
> > after { ... } # run after last iteration, only if there is at least
> > one iteration
> > noloop { ... }
In a message dated Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Damian Conway writes:
> Larry is still considering allowing a C block that would do this.
> It would go inside the loop block.
> [...]
> This will be called a C block. It goes inside the loop block.
> [...]
> This will be called a C block. It goes inside the lo
Why not allow C while still allowing C as a synonym,
preserving backwards compatibility while still allowing all these weird
and varied constructs people seem to have use for?
In any case, I don't really see why C necessarily implies all
these other cases, too. Maybe they're useful in the real w
In a message dated Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
>
> > Why not allow C while still allowing C as a synonym,
> > preserving backwards compatibility while still allowing all these weird
> > and varied constructs peo
In a message dated Sun, 12 May 2002, Miko O'Sullivan writes:
> From: "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > It it too much to ask, of the creator of a tied array, to implement
> > their code in such a way that *reading* an element of that array
> > does not have significant side-effects?
>
> Actua
ou read {m,} as "m or more",
and {,n} as "n or less", then I think M should clearly default to 0.
Is there something I'm missing here? If not, why not add some DWIMiness
and make {,n} work?
Trey
--
Trey Harris
Secretary and Executive
SAGE -- The System Administrators
In a message dated Fri, 7 Jun 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The most serious objection to this was 'well, use modules for matching *ml" -
> which simply points out that the current incarnation of perl6 regex doesn'
> t handle a very large class of matching problems very well.
I don't think th
In a message dated Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Damian Conway writes:
> Trey Harris wrote:
> > rule parsetag :w {
> > $tagname :=
> > %attrs := [ () =
> > ()
> > ]*
> >/?
> >
> > }
On seco
In a message dated Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Michael G Schwern writes:
> Attributes
> Transcending mere objects and classes, Perl 6 introduces adverbs.
Attributes are adjectives, not adverbs. Aren't they?
Trey
Did I hear somewhere that paragraph mode (i.e., C<$/ = ''>) is going away?
I can't find it in my archives, so maybe it was one of my feverish Perl 6
dreams (of which I've had too many lately, after spending a few days in
training with Damian ;-) but I think I heard it said by someone with
authorit
In a message dated Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Sean O'Rourke writes:
> - Implicit currying variables ($^a etc) are in. I thought I had read
> somewhere they were gone in favor of closure args, but people seem
> to be using them, and they're not hard to put in.
My understanding is that they still exist
In a message dated Mon, 15 Jul 2002, Brent Dax writes:
> With explicit, you just get the result of Inf ** 2 (which presumably is
> still Inf) in $bar. Perhaps neither is what you want, but at least it
> doesn't take forever to run.
Yes. This is my fear of hyperoperation being the default for no
In a message dated Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Miko O'Sullivan writes:
> OK, would that notation ( @arr[] = $var ) be something that could be added
> by a module, in the same way that operators and /* */ will be addable?
I don't think we've seen too much about how Larry plans to do
Perl-munging-Perl except
In a message dated Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Adam Lopresto writes:
> I was wondering whether the Perl 'while (<>){' idiom will continue to be
> supported in Perl 6? I seem to recall people posting example code the list
> using it (although I can't dig any up), but it seems to me that if Perl 6's
> lazy l
Another one...
class Foo is Bar;
method a {
setup();
}
1;
# EOF
(Is the 1 still required? I think I heard Damian say it was going away.)
The question is, is this valid, if Bar defines a sub/static method
'setup'?
Is my instict right that 'sub' in a class is a 'class/static method' in
the
In a message dated Sat, 17 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> [$!] Typically contains an object with both string and integer
> conversions. Whether convertability to both types is enough to satisfy a
> superpositional type is an interesting question. I suspect it *is*.
Then I'd assume that mul
I'm wondering about how the sigil-invariance rule interacts with
attributes.
class Foo {
attr $bar;
attr @bar;
method baz {
return @.bar[$.bar]; # sigils disambiguate
}
method frob ($self:) {
return $self.bar[$self.bar]; # uh-oh
}
}
Is this
In a message dated Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> No, it's right. But it doesn't break that. In the grammar, C-like
> languages include (something like):
>
> statement: expression ';'
> statement: if expression block
>
> So an if _statement_ terminates itself. The } on a line
In a message dated 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman writes:
> m{^\s* $stuff := [ "(.*?)" | (\S+) ] };
Or, how about
my ($fields) = /( '"')>|\S+)/;
? :-)
Trey
In a message dated 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman writes:
> > "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LW> On 27 Aug 2002, Uri Guttman wrote: : and quoteline might even
> LW> default to " for its delim which would make : that line:
> LW> :
> LW> : my ($fields) = /(|\S+)/;
>
> LW
In a message dated 28 Aug 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> Ok, just to be certain:
>
> $_ = "0";
> my $zilch = /0/ || 1;
>
> Is $zilch C<"0"> or 8?
8? How do you get 8? You'd get a result object which stringified was "0"
and booleanfied was true. So here, you'd get a result object vag
In a message dated Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Janek Schleicher writes:
> Aaron Sherman wrote at Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:34:15 +0200:
>
> > $stuff = (defined($1)?$1:$2) if /^\s*(?:"(.*?)"|(\S+))/;
>
> It gives me the idea of a missing feature:
>
> What really should be expressed is:
>
> my ($stuff) = /^\s*
In a message dated Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Damian Conway writes:
> And, of course, the C property would smart-match its value
> against the corrresponding argument, so one could also code optimized
> variants like:
>
> sub repeat is multi ($desc is valued(1), &body) {
> body(1);
>
In a message dated 1 Sep 2002, Uri Guttman writes:
> > "DW" == David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DW> On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 05:30 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> >> Sure. But the right solution is to permanently eliminate the
> >> sesquipedalian
> >> name (so you don
In a message dated 2 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> I'm working on a library of rules and subroutines for dealing with UNIX
> system files. This is really just a mental exercise to help me grasp the
> new pattern stuff from A5.
>
> I've hit a snag, though, on hypothetical variables. How would
In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Garrett Goebel writes:
> Don't the following statements have identical meaning?
>
> my Date $date;
> my Date $date = Date->new();
Not at all. The first declares that $date is a variable containing Date
objects, the second does the same, plus instantiates a ne
In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Trey Harris writes:
> > So what again is wrong with:
> >
> > my Date $date = 'June 25, 2002';
>
> Nothing--if Date is tieable and implements a STORE method which
> instantiates a new object.
Well, now that I re-read my
In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 03:44 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> >> my Date $date .= new('Jun 25, 20002');
> >
> > H. That's a very interesting idea.
> > I like it.
>
> Looks pretty groovy to me too. It looks like the .=
> o
In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Buddha Buck writes:
> I suspect that, if it makes sense to say
>
> $foo = &$date.method;
>
> then it would also make sense to say
>
> $date .= $foo;
>
> as well.
Interesting, that first line
$foo = &$date.method;
I need a bit of a refresher here, as my searc
In a message dated Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> The thread on hypotheticals has caused me to reread that section of A5 a
> few times now and a couple of paragraphs bother me the more I read
> them. I'll just quote the parts that bother me:
>
> ... If a regex sets a hypo
In a message dated Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Andrew Wilson writes:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:48:41PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 04:43:25PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Only augment //= in subroutine declarations, //= would also work.
> > > I love the //= oper
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
