On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 01:11:30AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: What happens to the flip flop operator? Will .. in scalar context remain
: the same?
I don't think so. It's definitely a candidate for a longer
Huffmanization simply in terms of frequency of use. On
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 06:43:05PM +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
: This whole issue kind of makes me go 'ugh'. One of the things I like
: best about Perl is the amazing simplicity of the input construct.
Hmm.
while () {...}
for .lines {...}
Looks like
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So optimizing to a state variable won't necessarily help your loop
overhead, but it could help your subroutine overhead, at least in Perl
5, if Perl 5 had state variables. Best you can do in Perl 5 is an
our
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Matthew Walton wrote:
At least we had the sense to call them subroutines instead of functions.
Of course, that also upset the mathematicians, who wanted to call them
functions anyway. Go figure.
That might be because the mathematicians haven't heard of a variant of a
function
OT
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, there's always domain and range, if we want to be
mathematical.
[snip]
What you want here is domain and codomain. Which leads me to
believe that you don't want either.
For the record, in most connections range would be just as good. Indeed
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array
Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over
such a list, may it be that on the first Clast one really
Michele Dondi wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Matthew Walton wrote:
At least we had the sense to call them subroutines instead of functions.
Of course, that also upset the mathematicians, who wanted to call them
functions anyway. Go figure.
That might be because the mathematicians haven't heard of a
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 22:03:19 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 02:15:51AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: oh! that it. I've found example which could make it clear to me
:
: sub test {
: return sub {
: for 1..3 {
:state $var = 1;
:print
Michele Dondi writes:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array
Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over
such a list, may it be
Dave Whipp wrote:
Attributes are declared with Chas, but also have a unique signil
C$.. So is it strictly necessary to declare them? Or rather, is it
Cno strictly necessary -- i.e. is the following legal?
no strict;
class Foo {
method bar {
say $.a++
}
}
For the standard layout, I'd
[ From p6i ]
Patrick R. Michaud writes:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 08:50:46PM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Not quite. It gives one value if one is true or 0 (false). This is more
information then the perl5 implementation returns. The returned value (if
any) is still true but usable, if I
Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
needed for most instances of Geometry::Triangle.
I know how this can be done in P5.
Attributes are declared with Chas, but also have a unique signil
C$.. So is it strictly necessary to declare them? Or rather, is it
Cno strictly necessary -- i.e. is the following legal?
no strict;
class Foo {
method bar {
say $.a++
}
}
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:18:34AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 08:24:20PM -0800, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I'm still going to prefer using :=, simply as a good programming
: practice. My mind sees a big difference between building a parse-tree
: object and just grepping for
14 matches
Mail list logo
