On 5/17/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 10:10:22PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Is the final level ($z and $w) participating in the MMD at all
: as tiebreakers? Luke mentioned that in all levels but the final
: one, Manhattan distance (sum of inheritance
On 5/17/05, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say that that's true. You can certainly still end up in conflict:
class A {...}
my A $a = A.new() but role { method x() {...} }
eval 'multi sub x(A $i:) {...}';
Now, the eval should work because A has no x
On 5/18/05, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Perl 6, I don't think we need to tag methods as virtual like C++
does, since we have the handy yadda, yadda to do that for us.
However, there is a variant of C++'s virtual that I'd love to see. By
default a role cannot override the
On 5/18/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(B Hi,
(B
(B now that the following works in Pugs :)...
(B
(B sub infix:. (Code x, Code y) { sub ($z) { x(y($z)) } }
(B (say . int)(10/3);# 3
(B
(B use Set;
(B sub infix:$B":(B ($item, @set) {
(B
On 5/19/05, Edward Cherlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It turns out that the domain and range and the location of the
cut lines have to be worked out separately for different
functions. Mathematical practice is not entirely consistent in
making these decisions, but in programming, there seems to
On 5/18/05, Anthony Heading [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to target hyperoperators at different axes of a
multi-dimensional array? This is an attractive feature of
various APL-like languages, viz. e.g. in J:
a =. 2 5 $ i. 7 - a simple 2-by-5 array
a
0 1 2 3 4
On 5/19/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
I wondered what uniq's default comparator should be, =:=?
infix:~~
Woah there. ~~ is a good comparator and all, but it's not the right
one here. ~~ compares an object and a pattern to see if they match.
That
On 5/19/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
quoting A12:
infix_postfix_meta_operator:= $x += 2;
postfix_prefix_meta_operator:{'»'} @array »++
prefix_postfix_meta_operator:{'«'} -« @magnitudes
infix_circumfix_meta_operator:{'»','«'} @a »+« @b
On 5/19/05, Joshua Gatcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All:
I was hoping the following would give me an outright error
sub foo (Int $bar) {
say $bar;
}
foo('hello');
Fortunately you are right.
I seem to recall, probably incorrectly, that one of the differences
with int, Int, and no
On 5/20/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I'm finally starting to implement multi-level invocants in MMDs.
I'd like to sanity check some cases first, though.
Dewarnocking time.
Are these two assumed to be identical?
multi sub foo ($x, $y)
multi sub foo ($x, $y : )
On 5/23/05, Edward Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They have the intent (Alan Eliasen has the intent) of implementing 'intervals'
which match fuzzy values where you know an approximate extent of the value,
but
not the value itself. E.g
(.5 ... .75) * (.5 ... .8) == (.25 ... .6)
On 5/25/05, Deborah Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid that because of the dynamic parse/execute nature of Perl, it
may be a theoretically intractable problem to parse Perl safely.
Yep. It's not really possible for the parser to distinguish between:
BEGIN {
When we heard that Larry didn't acutally want $$foo to infinitely
dereference, some of us were overjoyed, and others severely
disappointed. Both transparent dereferencing (infinite $$foo) and
opaque dereferencing (one-level $$foo) have their uses, but they are
definitely distinct. Instead of
On 5/29/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
while responding to nothingmuch++'s post function signatures?, I
thought that it'll be great if Code objects were fully introspectable.
I.e.:
foo.statements; # List of statements
foo.statements[0] #
Okay, I'd like to set myself straight. Sanity check:
bar($foo, $baz); # looks for subs (lexical then package), and
falls back to MMD
$foo.bar($baz);# looks in ref($foo), then falls back to MMD
If this is correct, can we simplify the latter to mean MMD only ?
Would there be a more
On 5/30/05, Gerd Pokorra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello!
Why is the do {...} literal added in Pugs 6.2.5?
Because do {...} is a part of the language, while or no while. Perl 6
is supposed to die if you say do {...} while, which isn't implemented
in pugs yet. But the special delayed
On 5/30/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I expect it should be pretty simple to implement:
loop {...} while EXPR;
loop {...} until EXPR;
Yep. It was. Done as of r4171.
Luke
Two questions:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
the code that returns %hash?
Luke
On 6/1/05, Deborah Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still in the camp of those wanting each operator to know its own identity
value (perhaps in terms of a trait). The identity of multiplication (say) is
always 1, after all, and it doesn't change depending on when you do
multiplication in
On 6/1/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
$ordered = [] @array;
If @array is empty, is $ordered supposed to be true or false? It
certainly shouldn't be anything but those two, because is a boolean
operator.
I read
On 6/3/05, Millsa Erlas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this allow the grammer rules of the language to be changed so that
this could be implemented? How does this work?
Yes. In fact, one of the big goals of perl 6 is to allow people to
mutate the grammar of the language.
If you just want
On 6/7/05, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
sub foo (Code $code) {
my $return_to_caller = - $ret { return $ret };
$code($return_to_caller);
return 23;
}
sub bar (Code $return) { $return(42) }
On 6/7/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then let's put it this way:
sub foo () {
for 0..10 {
when 6 { return 42 }
}
return 26;
}
And if that didn't do it, then let's write it equivalently as:
sub foo () {
map(- $_ { return 42
On 6/7/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I've made up my mind. The err option is not tenable because
it can cloak real exceptions, and having multiple versions of reduce is
simply multiplying entities without adding much power. So let's allow
an optional identvalue trait on
On 6/7/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:41:49PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: and still don't make sense as reduce operators.
Yeah, I keep confusing them with min and max.
: That reminds me, how are , , etc. defined anyway? How can we tell
: them
On 6/8/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, it outputs:
Foo
Foo
# dies
Yep. My mistake.
If that works, then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc = - $retval { return $retval }
On 6/12/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
because of timely
On 6/13/05, Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:24:07AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
Back when I wrote an
back-chaining system in perl, I used tied variables in order to
determine when I needed to solve for something
On 14 Jun 2005 06:07:10 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
multi sub infix_circumfix_meta_operator:{'',''} (Hash %a,Hash %b,Code
$op) {
my Hash %return;
for intersection(keys %a,keys %b) - $key {
%return{$key} =
On 6/16/05, Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
Aside from the fact that I don't think this is the right way to
specify class methods...
AFAIK,
On 6/16/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I was about to write the following test for Pugs:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
my sub factn (Int $acc, $i) {
return $acc if $i $n;
factn( $acc * $i, $i+1);
}
factn(1, 1);
}
When I thought to check the
On 6/16/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe a splat
@foo[*]
Or go with the parens with something in them to indicate the positive
absence of something.
@foo[(*)]
Anyone else want to have a go at this bikeshed?
You know, before I read this part of the message, I
On 6/20/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 12:11 +0200, Juerd wrote:
I think there exists an even simpler way to avoid any mess involved.
Instead of letting AUTOLOAD receive and pass on arguments, and instead
of letting AUTOLOAD call the loaded sub, why not have
On 6/21/05, Adam Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are of course assuming that every use of AUTOLOAD, for all time,
will result in
a) Calling another function
b) An error
Wouldn't this lead to hacks where people do things like this just to
prevent perl thinking it's a failure?
sub
On 6/21/05, Matthew Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we revisit the idea of using a shorter keyword for $?SELF, like
'o'? I know that $Larry said the idea was probably not going to work:
http://tinyurl.com/7baz6
but I'm curious if the reasoning that killed it then still holds
On 6/26/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, we've got this my $var is Proxy( ... ) construct in A06.
Say you've got this class:
class MagicVal {
has Int $.varies is rw;
method varies returns Int is rw {
return my $var is Proxy ( :for($.varies),
Attempting to come up with a simplistic math grammar that has one possible
operand (A) and one possible operator (*) - so that things like A, A*A, and
A*A*A*A*A are all parsed. This simplistic example (thanks to spinclad on
#perl6) cause PGE to explode.
$ cat ta.p6r
grammar f;
rule atom
On 7/7/05, wolverian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:18:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
I'm a pretty high level guy, so I don't know about the performance
implications of that. Maybe we want to keep seek() low level, anyway.
Sorry about replying to myself, but I want to
On 7/8/05, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Constrained types in MMD position, as well as value-based MMDs, are _not_
resolved in the type-distance phase, but compile into a huge given/when
loop that accepts the first alternative. So this:
multi sub foo (3) { ...
On 7/8/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a draft of a proposition for what I think is proper MMD
dispatching order:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/mmd_match_order.txt
He meant:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/mmd_match_order.txt
Luke
On 7/8/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a draft of a proposition for what I think is proper MMD
dispatching order:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/mmd_match_order.txt
--
Order of definition tie breaking:
Two signatures defined in the same file:
On 7/8/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we're going to reorder things for the user,
it does need to happen in a predictable way, even if it's not correct
100% of the time. I find your tree to be pretty complex (that could
be because I don't understand the reasoning for the
On 7/11/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
my $x = 42;
my $y = $x;
$y++;
say $x; # Still 42, of course
class Foo {
has $.data;
method incr () { $.data++ }
# Please fill in appropriate magic here
}
I think it's just `class Foo is
On 7/11/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
class Foo {
has $.data;
method incr () { $.data++ }
# Please fill in appropriate magic here
}
my Foo $x .= new(:data(42));
my Foo $y = $x;
$y.incr();
say $x.data;# Should still be 42
say $x =:= $y;
Thanks for your very detailed explanation of your views on the Pure
MMD scheme, Damian. I finally understand why you're opposed to it. I
could never really buy your previous argument: Manhattan distance is
better.
Damian writes:
Similarly, since the number of potential variants is the
On 7/14/05, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is more a note to collective 'self' question than one I expect the
answer to right now. (The answer I expect right now is a glib it will)
How will the perl6 compiler cope with people creating threads inside
BEGIN blocks?
A glib it
On 16 Jul 2005 12:22:31 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:14:24 +0800, Autrijus Tang
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:24:21AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
There is a new generic comparison operator known as
On 7/16/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to have some coffee mugs thrown at me for saying this, but perhaps:
Generic StringNumericIdentity
+---+---++---+
Equality
On 7/17/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have another view.
The Num role and the Str role both consume the Eq role. When your
class tries to both be a Num and a Str, == conflicts.
I have two scenarios:
class Moose does Num does Str { ... }
# Moose was
On 7/17/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You keep using that word. I do not think
it means what you think it means
-- Inigo Montoya
Quite. I abused Liskov's name greatly here. Sorry about that.
Anyway, my argument is founded on another
On 7/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
# Perl 5
my %hash = (a = 1, b = 2, a = 3);
warn $hash{a}; # 3
But I vaguely remember having seen...:
# Perl 6
my %hash = (a = 1, b = 2, a = 3);
say %hasha;# 1
Can somebody confirm this?
Yes.
On 7/26/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
are the following assumptions correct?
sub foo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { @args[0] }
say ~foo(a, b, c); # a
Yep.
my @array = a b c d;
say ~foo(@array);# a b c d (or a?)
say ~foo(@array, z); # a b c
On 7/26/05, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
I would like to be able to iterate over all the
objects in the live set.
My Idea actually is to embedd that into the namespace syntax.
The idea is that of looking up non-negativ integer literals
with 0 beeing
http://repetae.net/john/recent/out/supertyping.html
This was a passing proposal to allow supertype declarations in
Haskell. I'm referencing it here because it's something that I've had
in the back of my mind for a while for Perl 6. I'm glad somebody else
has thought of it.
Something that is
On 7/19/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And now maybe you see why I am so disgusted by this metric. You see,
I'm thinking of a class simply as the set of all of its possible
instances.
There's your problem. Classes are not isomorphic to sets of instances and
derived classes
I just realized something that may be very important to my side of the
story. It appears that I was skimming over your example when I should
have been playing closer attention:
On 7/18/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the following classes:
class A {...}
On 7/27/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
role Complex
does Object
contains Num
{...}
I've probably misunderstood you, but...:
role Complex does Object {...}
Num does Complex;
# That should work and DWYM, right
On 7/27/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:00:20AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
Everything that is a Num is a Complex right?
Not according to Liskov. Num is behaving more like a constrained
subtype of Complex as soon as you admit that isa is about both
On 7/29/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In S06's Currying section, there are some strange looking examples:
textfrom := substr.assuming(:str($text) :len(Inf));
textfrom := substr.assuming:str($text):len(Inf);
woof ::= bark:(Dog).assuming :pitchlow;
Why is it
On 8/1/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In general, (@foo, @bar) returns a new list with the element joined,
i.e. @foo.concat(@bar). If you want to create a list with two sublists,
you've to use ([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]) or ([EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
On 8/3/05, Aankhen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how *do* I pass an unflattened array to a function with a slurpy
parameter?
Good question. I would have thought that one of the major gains from
turning arrays and hashes into references in
On 8/3/05, Nigel Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of passing the buck from object to object via parameter lists
and type inference (traversing OO hierarchies etc) maybe we could ..
Model the flow of control through a program as a simple linear queue of
topic changes. A central
I vaguely recall that we went over this already, but I forgot the
conclusion if we did.
In Damian and Larry's talk here at OSCON, I saw the example:
if foo() - $foo {
# use $foo
}
How can that possibly work? If a bare closure { } is equivalent to -
?$_ is rw { }, then the
On 8/4/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
my $pair = (a = 1);
say $pair[0]; # a?
say $pair[1]; # 1?
I've found this in the Pugs testsuite -- is it legal?
Nope. That's:
say $pair.key;
say $pair.value;
Also:
say $paira; # 1
say
On 8/4/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
(found in the Pugs testsuite.)
my $undef = undef;
say $undef.chars? # 0? undef? die?
say chars $undef; # 0? undef? die?
I'd opt for undef.chars to be an error (no such method) and chars
undef to return 0 (with a
I'm writing a new module that optimizes sets of conditions into
decision trees. Initially I allowed the user to specify conditions as
strings, and if that condition began with a !, it would be the
inverse of the condition without the !.
But then I thought, the user will more than likely have
On 8/5/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
my $str = Hello;
$str.ref = Int; # allowed?
$str.meta = some_sub.meta; # allowed?
I hardly think those work. Both of those require a change of
implementation, which we can't do generically. So people
On 8/5/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
~Str;# class? Str?
Str
~::Str; # class? Str?
I don't know how :: works anymore. I'll avoid these.
~Str.meta; # class? (fill in please)?
Class
On 8/9/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why not just use describes? Then maybe Object.isa(Foo) delegates
to $obj.meta.describes(Foo).
Hmm. We have a similar problem with the new class-set notation.
These two things:
$a.does(Foo);
Bar.does(Foo);
Mean two different things:
On 8/10/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's an toplevel optimization, which is not applicable to
module authors. So I'd very much welcome a lexical pragma that
forces static binding of subroutine calls.
Yeah, but the whole point of not allowing that is so that you can
override
On 8/10/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/9/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So why not just use describes? Then maybe Object.isa(Foo) delegates
to $obj.meta.describes(Foo).
Hmm. We have a similar problem with the new class-set notation
On 8/10/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is an example of a 2D distance method
role Point
{
has Num $.x;
has Num $.y;
}
method distance( Point $a, Point $b -- Num )
{
return sqrt( ($a.x - $b.x)**2 - ($a.y - $b.y)**2);
}
Now comes the
On 8/11/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 08:02:00PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
my Foo ::x;
a) ::x (=) ::Foo (i.e. any type assigned to x must be covariant wrt. Foo)
b) ::x is an object of type Foo, where Foo.does(Class)
c) Something
On 8/10/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 21:00 -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
Will there be an operator for symmetric difference? I nominate (^).
That makes sense, although bear in mind that the existing Set module for
Perl 6, and the Set::Scalar and Set::Object
. Glock
2005/8/10, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Luke Palmer wrote:
A new development in perl 6 land that will make some folks very happy.
There is now a Set role. Among its operations are (including
parentheses):
On 8/10/05, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[changing the subject line for the benefit of the summarizer ...]
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
And now some people will begin to wonder how ugly set values will look.
We should also tell them that lists (and possibly
On 8/16/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
1_234; # surely 1234
1e23; # surely 1 * 10**23
1._5; # call of method _5 on 1?
1._foo; # call of method _foo on 1?
1.e5; # 1.0 * 10**5?
1.efoo; # call of method efoo on 1?
On 8/17/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could still reason about it if you can determine what the initial
value is going to be. But certainly that's not a guarantee, which
is one of the reasons we're now calling this write/bind-once behavior
readonly and moving true constants to a
On 8/17/05, Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to go over the various features in P::V and see if there are
equivalents in Perl6, and bring up any questions I have. I think this
will be interesting for folks still new to P6 (like myself) and existing
P::V users (I think there's a
Two years ago or so, I became very happy to learn that the left side
of binding works just like a routine signature. So what if binding
*were* just a routine signature. That is, could we make this:
sub foo () {
say hello;
my $x := bar();
say goodbye $x;
}
On 8/19/05, Yiyi Hu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{ a b c }.paris;
This will cause pugs run, won't stop until reached the world
end.(out of memory)
Fixed.
hmm,
BTW, What should { a } return by default?
an hash ref or An error?
Neither: a code block that exectues the (probably undefined)
We've seen many problems come up with the current special treatment of
pairs. Here's what I can think of:
* Pairs are restricted to a particular position in the argument list, which
leads to confusion (why isn't this being passed named?) and poor
end-weight in something like this:
What is the resulting data structure in each of the following:
- [1, 2]
- [[1,2], [3,4]]
- [[1,2], 3]
[[1,2], 3] + [[4,5], 6]
[1, 2, [3]] + [[4,5], 6]
Luke
Here is an update to Synopsis 3 incorporating recent additions. If
any of this is wrong or disagreeable, this is the time to say so.
Luke
S03.pod.diff
Description: Binary data
Output?
sub foo (+$a, *%overflow) {
say %overflow{};
}
foo(:a(1), :b(2)); # b2
foo(:a(1), :overflow{ b = 2 }); # b2
foo(:a(1), :overflow{ b = 2 }, :c(3)); # ???
Luke
On 8/22/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the simplest thing is to say that you can't bind to the name
of the slurpy hash. You give a name to it so that you can refer to it
inside, but that name is not visible to binding.
Fixed in https://svn.perl.org/perl6/doc. Thanks.
Luke
On 8/22/05, Yiyi Hu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my( $s, $t ); $s = value t is $t; $t = xyz; print $s;
I have an answer for you that is much more detailed than what you want
to hear. The short answer is yes.
This is possible to implement, provided you appropriately declare $t.
It all depends on
On 8/23/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
(asking because a test testing for the converse was just checked in to
the Pugs repository [1])
sub foo ($n, *%rest) {...}
foo 13;
# $n receives 13, of course, %rest is ()
foo 13, foo = bar;
# $n
On 8/24/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
If
On 8/25/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:16:56 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:13:03 +0300, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
perl6 creates a new instance of the perl compiler (presumably an
While nothingmuch and I are gutting junctions and trying to find the
right balance of useful/dangerous, I'm going to propose a new way to
do autothreading that doesn't use junctions at all.
First, let me show you why I think junctions aren't good enough:
I can't extract the information that the
Let me just clarify something that my intuition led me to believe:
sub foo(infix:+) { 1 + 2 }
sub bar($a, $b) { say $a,$b }
foo(bar); # 1,2
That is, operator names can be lexically bound just like any other
name. Also, this doesn't have any affect on implicit coercions, etc.
On 8/31/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:56:25 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
(That is, lexically binding prefix:+ does not change things in
numeric context; only when there's actually a + in front of them)
Unless you override prefix:+ ?
sub foo (prefix
On 9/1/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 13:43:57 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Uh yeah, I think that's what I was saying. To clarify:
sub foo (prefix:+) { 1 == 2 }# 1 and 2 in numeric context
foo(say); # nothing printed
But:
sub foo
On 9/1/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-01 20:29 (+0200):
for ($arrayref,) {...}; # loop body executed only one time
Yes: scalar in list context.
for ($arrayref) {...}; # loop body executed one or three times?
Same thing: scalar in list
On 9/2/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-09-01 23:43 (+):
I would probably say that scalars never automatically dereference.
It's lists and hashes that automatically dereference/enreference.
arrays
Yes, arrays, right.
That is, everything is a scalar
On 9/3/05, Stuart Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 03/09/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A multi sub is a collection of variants, so it doesn't have arity,
each variant has arity.
I'd say it 'fail's.
But if the reason you're calling `foo.arity` is to answer the
question Can
Here's a good Perl 6 final exam question:
Spot the mistake (hint: it's not in the math):
module Complex;
sub i() is export {
Complex.new(0,1)
}
multi sub infix:+ (Complex $left, Complex $right) is export {
Complex.new($left.real + $right.real, $left.imag +
On 9/4/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always saw scoping of multis as something that applies to the
variants...
multi sub foo {
}
{
my multi sub foo {
}
On 9/5/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
quick questions:
constant pi = 3; # works
# Is pi package- or lexically-scoped?
our constant pi = 3; # legal?
my constant pi = 3; # legal?
Yep. Bare constant is package, just
501 - 600 of 1293 matches
Mail list logo
