Austin Hastings wrote:
It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about this,
and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
The original discussion posited an adverbial comparison, viz:
C$a eq:ref $b. Which, looking at your proposal, is very close to
C$a =:= $b,
use Permutations permutations compositions;
# Generate all strings of length $n
method Rule::Group::generate(Int $n) { # Type sprinkles :)
compositions($n, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) == map {
my @rets = map {
$^atom.generate($^n)
I've had an idea brewing for a while, and since talk seems to have turned
to reg^H^H^Hpatterns and rules again, I figured this might be the time to
mention it.
A while ago someone asked about whether backtracking semantics are
mandatory in any implementation, or whether it would be legal to build
On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:44:25AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
There isn't any, particularly. We're doing preemptive threads. It
isn't up for negotiation. This is one of the few things where I truly
don't care what people's opinions on the matter are.
Sorry, I haven't been following this too
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:30:10AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
just an aside, and a bit off-topic, but has anybody considered
hijacking the regular expression engine in perl6 and turning it into
its opposite, namely making *productions* of strings/sounds/whatever
that could possibly match
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
This has been alluded to before.
What would /A*B*/ produce?
Because if you were just processing the rex, I think you'd have to
finish generating all possibilities of A* before
I recently discovered a CPAN module called WhatIf
(http://search.cpan.org/author/SIMONW/Whatif-1.01/). This module has
the ability to provide rollback functionality for arbitrary code.
I don't really understand continuations yet (although I'm reading up
on them), so perhaps they would allow
Yary Hluchan writes:
a = arcadi shehter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aI think this was already discussed once and then it was proposed to
aattach a property to characters of the string
a
a sub peek_at_sky {
a
a my Color @numbers = peek_with_some_hardware;
a
a my $say_it = join map
--- Adam D. Lopresto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose that since the empty pattern is no longer legal (and
about time), we use | in patterns to indicate alternation without
preference, and || to indicate try the first, then the second,
etc.
Hmm
A neat idea, but can you elaborate on
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:18:47PM -0800, Paul wrote:
I think Larry's accomodating everybody, here.
Those of us who want to play with the tinkertoys will probably enjoy
the whole box, even the little widgets that take us a while to
identify.
Agreed. But I'd like to keep the identification
--- mlazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
It has been pointed out once already that we already talked about
this, and I for one am in favor of the general version of it.
The original discussion posited an adverbial comparison, viz:
C$a eq:ref $b. Which, looking at your
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, mlazzaro wrote:
Yes. I expect that internally, that's how it will work. (And agreed,
C.ref is probably a good name.)
My concern with explicitly comparing refs in order to compare identity
is a philosophical one. It may be perfectly acceptable to do it via
$x.ref
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 07:09:55AM -0800, David Storrs wrote:
: On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 12:18:47PM -0800, Paul wrote:
:
: I think Larry's accomodating everybody, here.
: Those of us who want to play with the tinkertoys will probably enjoy
: the whole box, even the little widgets that take us a
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 10:40:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, though it's usually been mentioned with respect to things like:
my ($a,$b,$c) is constant = abc();
However, I would personally go with the prefix zone macros before using
distributed traits, just to get the zone info out
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:37:46PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
: On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 08:44:25AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: There isn't any, particularly. We're doing preemptive threads. It
: isn't up for negotiation. This is one of the few things where I truly
: don't care what people's
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For anything other than existential issues, I believe that
most arguments about the future containing the words either,
or, both, or neither are likely to be wrong. In
particular, human psychology is rarely about the extremes
of binary logic. As
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
This has been alluded to before.
What would /A*B*/ produce?
Because if you were just processing the rex, I think you'd have to
finish generating all possibilities of A* before you began iterating
over B*...
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:29:37AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
This has been alluded to before.
What would /A*B*/ produce?
Because if you were just processing the rex, I think you'd have to
finish generating all possibilities of A* before you
Yary Hluchan wrote:
making *productions* of strings/sounds/whatever that could possibly
match the regular expression?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the :any switch of apoc 5?
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/06/26/synopsis5.html
Not really, unless the input string is infinite!
Well,
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[extremely large *SNIP*]
Maybe the |/|| distinction isn't needed, and we just need a
declarator on rules that says they are side-effect-free, and can thus
be optimized.
[snip]
I like this solution better than making a new operator. In Perl
tradition,
I recently discovered a CPAN module called WhatIf
(http://search.cpan.org/author/SIMONW/Whatif-1.01/). This module has
the ability to provide rollback functionality for arbitrary code.
Crazy... I was just thinking about this for an experimental language
called Snapshot I'm about to implement
21 matches
Mail list logo
