John Siracusa:
Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in Perl 6
code...
Well, the easiest signature to do is probably:
sub for([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
PRE { @list.end =~ Code }
...
We have been discussing how to pass data to Tk callbacks.
In particular Entry widget validation routines.
There are a number of items that they _might_ be interested in
but a typical routine would only use a few.
Currently it passes them all as positional parameters.
One idea that occured to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE version,
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
-Mark
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
Not directly, no. However, some trickyness with macros would probably
let you do it. I don't yet understand macros well enough to show
you...
Luke
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote in message
Proposed behavior of *?@ : All Arguement to Parameter mapping left of it
are processed Left to Right. Once seen, the mapping starts over right to
left. Everything remaining is slurpable.
Yes, it's more expensive to use, just like the RE
On 2003-08-01 at 09:54:57, Dave Whipp wrote:
A junction on one element is almost always redundant, and can be cast
directly into the scalar that is its eigenstate. The only issue with doing
that is that certain junction methods might not be available. However, in
the case of a Cnone, an
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quick, dumb question: what is an abjunction? How does it differ
from a junction?
An abjuction requires that none of its members match. For example,
($a == none(1,2,3)) is true for any value of $a except 1, 2 or 3.
Dave.
In E6, Damian write: A junction is a single scalar value that can act like
two or more values at once.
Whenever I see a statement like this, I tend ask myself What happenned to
zero and one?. Perhaps its intentional; perhaps its sloppy writing. What
issues arise with junctions of 0 or 1
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quick, dumb question: what is an abjunction? How does it differ
from a junction?
An abjuction requires that none of its members match. For example,
($a == none(1,2,3)) is true for any value of $a except 1, 2 or 3.
Actually, no :-)
disjunction: any()
FWIW, we're aware of the problem.
I posed this very question to Larry a few months back, when I was writing E6.
We're still mulling over the correct answer. The last thought on the problem
that Larry's shared with me was that there may need to be a special case for
allowing a single block
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying part:
List::Part::part.assuming(labels = sheep goats)
One had to curry in Clabels to be the same as it was defined in Cpart
originally, i.e. C sheep goats .
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e., assuming
nothing
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying part:
List::Part::part.assuming(labels = sheep goats)
One had to curry in Clabels to be the same as it was defined in Cpart
originally, i.e. C sheep goats .
What if one wanted to curry in whatever the default is, i.e.,
I wrote:
Damian explains:
Trey asked:
To take the E6 example of currying part:
List::Part::part.assuming(labels = sheep goats)
One had to curry in Clabels to be the same as it was defined in Cpart
originally, i.e. C sheep goats .
What if one wanted to curry in
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Is it possible with the new parameter declaration syntax to declare
a mandatory name-only parameter?
Probably. I think that the '?', '*', and '+ prefixes are abbreviations for
traits (Cis optional, Cis List, Cis optional is named). So a named,
mandatory parameter would be:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
may need to be a special case for allowing a single block parameter after
the slurpy
And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches...
(Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz had
Hello,
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
to the following perl6 junctions:
LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
=
(forall x)(x
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Derek Ross wrote:
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
In particular, do the following logic statements correspond directly
to the following perl6 junctions:
LOGIC PERL6 JUNCTION (DESCRIP)
=
Hello,
Do junctions have a direct representation as predicate logic statements?
Yes. Damian and I have already worked them out in a link I have
already posted today:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8oe=UTF-8safe=offselm=3DF2FE76.6050602%40conway.orgrnum=2
In particular,
Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
We have been discussing how to pass data to Tk callbacks.
In particular Entry widget validation routines.
There are a number of items that they _might_ be interested in
but a typical routine would only use a few.
Currently it passes them all as positional parameters.
One
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:01:15PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
: The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
: may need to be a special case for allowing a single block parameter after
: the slurpy
:
: And the Rubyometer
21 matches
Mail list logo
