Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Colin exemplifies:
$a = 1;
@a = (1);
@b = (1, 2, 3);
@c = (4, 5, 6);
$a = $a ^+ @b;
@a = @a ^+ @b;
print $a; # 7
No. It will (probably) print: 4. Because:
$a = $a ^+ @b;
becomes:
Given:
$a = 1;
@b = (1, 2, 3);
Damian suggested that:
$a = $a ^+ @b
becomes:
$a = ($a, $a, $a) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
$a = (1, 1, 1) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
$a = (2, 3, 4)
$a = 4;
Whereas Piers thought that:
$a = $a ^+ @b
becomes:
$a = [$a, $a,
David Nicol wrote:
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
First this thread tells me that 123foo will be 123 in numeric
context. Now I find myself wondering what 123indigo evaluates
to!
Also 123. I think that complex numbers, if happening automatically,
would only match
($realpart,
David Nicol wrote:
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
Or maybe NaN evaluates to 'NaN' in string context and
+$x eq 'NaN' (or +$x eq NaN) could be used? NaN==NaN being false is in
fact very intuitive for me, as NaN is something without any numerical
meaning, so numerically compared to anything
The section of Apocalypse 2 'Other Decisions About Variables' states:
$#foo is gone. If you want the final subscript of an array, and [-1] isn't
good enough, use @foo.end instead.
Here is an example where -1 is not good enough:
# this perl 5 code...
foreach $index (0..$#array) {
# proposed
foreach $index (keys @array) {
do_something($index, @array[$index]);
}
That's too much like PHP, and people would start thinking arrays and
hashes are the same type (associative arrays with autoquoted keys).
I think it's a good idea anyway.
-Hao
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think that's
something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
parser hacks. Up to Larry whether it goes in the base language, but I think
I'd
| As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think
that's
| something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
| parser hacks. Up to Larry whether it goes in the base language, but I
think
| I'd prefer not.
|
| Speaking of string turning into numbers ...
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 10:28:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
As for more complex string literals evaluating to numbers, I think that's
something best left to either a user-written sub, or user-written fancy
parser
On Tue, 2001-10-09 at 22:42, Damian Conway wrote:
Brent asked:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
He likes the idea, but is having trouble finding
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 01:26:12PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
No, I think if you want 10_000 to be 1, you can always
eval it, but I don't think anyone reading in text should expect
that.
I'll agree as long as we make the string 1e2foo evaluate to 1 in a
numeric context rather than 100
Hi to all,
I have been thinking lately about hyperoperators, and particulary
about its similarity with RFC 207 (Arrays: Efficient Array Loops)
For the ones that don't have the RFC in mind, I copy its abstract:
This RFC proposes a notation for creating efficient implicit
loops over
Aaron Sherman wrote:
It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
a string 100_000 it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
really weird if 10indigo became 10i, 1e3foobar became 1000, and
10_000 became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
Note that in Perl 5.6.1 AS
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
I haven't got any contact with NaN before, but when Tim pointed that
NaN!=NaN is true in IEEE I thought that it does make sense. I see pros
and cons and it's not so ugly and non-intuitive as it can look. When
comparing $a and $b as numbers there is no need for
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
First this thread tells me that 123foo will be 123 in numeric
context. Now I find myself wondering what 123indigo evaluates
to!
Also 123. I think that complex numbers, if happening automatically,
would only match
($realpart, $imaginarypart) =
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~cu200/Prover/index.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Given:
:
: $a = 1;
: @b = (1, 2, 3);
:
: Damian suggested that:
:
: $a = $a ^+ @b
:
: becomes:
:
: $a = ($a, $a, $a) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
: $a = (1, 1, 1) ^+ (1, 2, 3)
: $a = (2, 3, 4)
: $a = 4;
:
: Whereas Piers thought that:
:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2001 at 08:06:15PM +0200, Angel Faus wrote:
Maybe i should better explain myself with an example.
@arr3 = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i] # also @arr[^i] = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i]
Hyper-operators do this just fine.
@arr4 = $v * @arr1[^i]
$sum =+ @arr1[^i]
@lengths_array =
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 01:27 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
David Nicol wrote:
RaFaL Pocztarski wrote:
First this thread tells me that 123foo will be 123 in numeric
context. Now I find myself wondering what 123indigo evaluates
to!
Also 123. I think
(sorry, I posted it before I finished...)
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Sure. 5 + 10i will probably evaluate to 5 + 10i and just get
constant-folded at compile time. ;)
That's good to know. :)
I don't think that imaginary numbers should have
their own class, like real ones have.
If we support
@arr3 = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i] # also @arr[^i] = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i]
Hyper-operators do this just fine.
Oh yes they do. The point is that the ^i-loop way is better (more powerful and simpler
at the same time).
Maybe the examples where not good enough.
Take the @b ^/ $a expression.
raptor wrote:
| It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
| a string 100_000 it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
| really weird if 10indigo became 10i, 1e3foobar became 1000, and
| 10_000 became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
]- Agree if u want this in
Aaron Sherman wrote:
For example, zero-filled numbers are not converted to octal because
many text files contain zero-filled numbers.
The idea that 0cat is 0, but 0xat is 10 will confuse a lot of folk.
It all should be at least possible to do, but not mandatory.
If strings in numeric
Glenn Linderman wrote:
On the other hand, there is a case to be made that any form of number that
might get printed by perl's unformatted i.e.
print 0+$var
should be reconvertible back to a string via implicit numeric conversions of
strings. I think the only thing that would affect
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
It's bothered me that I can write 100_000 in my perl code, but if I have
a string 100_000 it'll evaluate to 100 when numerified. It would be
really weird if 10indigo became 10i, 1e3foobar became 1000, and
10_000 became 10 in Perl 6 IMHO.
That should be the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@arr3 = @arr1[^i] + @arr2[^i] # also @arr[^i] = @arr1[^i] +
@arr2[^i]
Hyper-operators do this just fine.
Oh yes they do. The point is that the ^i-loop way is better (more powerful
and simpler at the same time).
Maybe the examples where not good enough.
Your
26 matches
Mail list logo
