On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:43:00 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
Damian wrote:
caller :{.label eq 'MAINLOOP};
Errr what is that odd and disturbing notation? I don't recall ever seeing
that.
It's vaguely sinister. Must be the moustache operator.
-- c
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030323
Assuming I can tear myself away from stroking the cat who has just
magically appeared on my chest and is even now trying to wipe his dags
on my nose, welcome one and all to another Perl 6 summary, which should
go a lot quicker now
suppose I want this behaviour :
sub new_counter($start=0) {
my $cnt = $start;
my sub incr {
++$cnt;
};
my sub decr {
--$cnt;
};
return sub (str $how=incr)
{
given
Getting back to A6, a few thoughts. From the 'Re: is static?' thread:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, people *will* write
state $foo = 0;
The question is what that should mean, and which major set of people
we want to give the minor surprise to, and how
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
MikeL
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
Imho P6ML is a bad idea, if it means what I think it means (creating a parser
for quasi-MLs). People will laugh at our folly, and rightly so for trying to be
able to parse
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
But it is certainly possible to extend the initialization capabilities
to be more robust:
sub foo($x = 'blah') {...} # wrong: use one of the below
sub foo($x ::= 'blah') {...} # same as C$x is default('blah')
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I, for one, think it's a great idea, and the thought of altering perl
6's grammar to make it a functional language is sheer genius, making
the
--- Robin Berjon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If it is creating a /toolset/ to make recuperating data from a
quasi-XML (aka
tag soup) then it is an interesting area of research. I can think of
two approaches:
- have a parametrisable XML grammar. By default it would really
parse XML, and
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I, for one, think it's a great idea, and the
--- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I,
(Note forwarded to the list as penance for my silliness. :)
sub foo($x .= foo) {...} # Append foo to whatever $x given
sub foo($x ~= foo) {...} # smart-test $x against foo
Well, last time I looked (granted, it could've changed numerous times
since then) ~ was the string concatenator
At 11:52 AM -0800 3/25/03, Paul wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I, for one,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:19:30PM -0800, Paul wrote:
Is there a page up anywhere that summarizes the latest
prognostications?
Mike Lazzaro had compiled the state-of-the-ops for perl6, but I don't
know if it's anywhere other than in the archives for this list. Just
go to google groups and
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:02 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
Imho P6ML is a bad idea, if it means what I think it means (creating a
parser for quasi-MLs). People will laugh
At 12:47 PM -0800 3/25/03, Paul wrote:
|==[*]|
Sarcasmeter?
lol -- I think my BS-o-meter just redlined, too
Heh. Sorry 'bout that. Bring it to OSCON and I'll get it fixed. :)
lol -- when/where is that? (Seems all I do here is ask
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:47:32PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
But it is certainly possible to extend the initialization capabilities
to be more
I don't see how ::= (compile-time-bind) can be used as the
initialize-if-non-existent operator.
I mean, it happens in the wrong phase (compile-time, not run-time) and it does
the wrong thing (binding, not assignment).
For example:
sub foo {
state $count ::= 0;# $count
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:19:42AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
my $x = 1;# initialization
$x = 1;# assignment
Woo, C++ :-)
Considering 'our' merely declares a lexical alias to a package var, how
do we initialize package vars?
--
Matthijs van Duin -- May the Forth
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:19:42AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
We then simply define the = in:
sub foo ( ?$bar = $baz ) {...}
to be an initialization (since it's on the declaration of the
parameter). If the parameter has already be bound to some other
container, then that other
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:27:55PM +0100, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:19:42AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
my $x = 1;# initialization
$x = 1;# assignment
Woo, C++ :-)
Considering 'our' merely declares a lexical alias to a package var, how
do
of crap known as XSL. An XML-based derivative that performs XML
transformations, allowing/using embedded P6 regexs, closures, etc., and
able to more easily translate XML == P6 data.
I'm still quite XML-phobic, but I see the need for strong XML support
in Perl 6. However, I'd like to work with
Damian Conway wrote:
I don't see how ::= (compile-time-bind) can be used as the
initialize-if-non-existent operator.
I mean, it happens in the wrong phase (compile-time, not run-time) and
it does the wrong thing (binding, not assignment).
The only case I can think of where is might be useful is
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Mark Biggar wrote:
sub myprint(+$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
open f /a/d/v/f/r;
myprint file = f, Hello World!\n; # goes to f
myprint Differnet World!\n;# goes to IO:STDOUT
As a side note... that sig will not do
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 02:19 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
And I don't think that allowing 20 different types of assignment in
the parameter list of a subroutine actually helps at all. Especially
since the vast majority of parameters in Perl 6 will be constant.
Twenty types of
sub myprint(+$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
As a side note... that sig will not do the behavior you've described.
You instead want this:
sub myprint([EMAIL PROTECTED], +$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT) {...}
The named parameter +$file has to go behind
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However I still think we're probably multiplying entities
unnecessarily.
A beautiful if somewhat understated reference to Occam's Razor.
While the synoptic synthesis of the writing of William of Occam is
often translated into English as One should not
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I, for one, think it's a great idea, and the thought of altering perl
6's grammar to make it a
28 matches
Mail list logo
