Luke Palmer wrote:
But I counter that arguability by saying that you really shouldn't be
putting one() in type signatures. If you want something to be an A or a
B, and you're not doing any checking later on in the code, then it's
fine if it's both A and B. If you are doing checking later on,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 04:10:08PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:10:20AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Autothreading, even if enabled by default, doesn't happen until a
: junction is created and used somewhere. Thus the only time our hypothetical
: new
In my recent unsuccessful attempt to convert junctions into sets with their
own container, perhaps the strongest argument against could be paraphrased
as follows:
Everything about junctions or sets can be represented fully as an object,
and objects are nicely stored in scalars, because it's
On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
So maybe the actual pragma name is
use qubits;
Note: the pragma is not use junctions, since they're already allowed
to use junctions, as long as they don't try to observe them. :-)
To quote Noah, what's a qubit?
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:26 -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
The obvious statement I expect to here is Perl's always had Arrays
and Hashes. While I'm not sure if they were there for Perl 1.0 (I
started w/ Perl 4.xx)
They were.
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
Damian Conway wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
However, what if what you're calling a non-Perl Parrot based function?
Do we disable junctions from playing with non-PurePerl functions? Or do
we autothread over them? How do we tell if a non-Perl function outputs
to determine if we should be able to
At 01:04 PM 2/15/2005 -0800, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:26 -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.
Perl isn't a pure object-oriented language.
No
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:07:53PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
I see it this way:
When perl sees a function call, and one of the arguments is a junction,
there are three basic options:
1) If the junction is wrapped up in some larger container, like a slurpy
list, pass it on as is.
2) If the
Larry Wall wrote:
Or perhaps
the problem isn't returning junctions per se, but storing them into
a variable that the user is thinking of as a simple scalar value.
That was the largest, perhaps only, reason I made my Sets vs Junctions
post.
Although my solution to the issue was different from
chromatic wrote:
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.
Perl isn't a pure object-oriented language.
Rephrasing my question:
What characteristics would _any_ new structure or class
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:06:51AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
But what y'all are talking about above is the other end--the return
type. And maybe we need to enforce a newbie-friendly invariant on that
end as well. I suppose we could default to not accepting junctional
return values by
Rod Adams writes:
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the
edge for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets
do not.
Nothing. In fact, arrays and hashes aren't atomic or fundamental in any
respect, and the main thing that keeps them there is
DW == David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DW On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
So maybe the actual pragma name is
use qubits;
Note: the pragma is not use junctions, since they're already allowed
to use junctions, as long as they don't try to observe them.
David Storrs writes:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:06:51AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
But what y'all are talking about above is the other end--the return
type. And maybe we need to enforce a newbie-friendly invariant on
that end as well. I suppose we could default to not accepting
Thomas Sandla writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
But I counter that arguability by saying that you really shouldn't be
putting one() in type signatures. If you want something to be an A or a
B, and you're not doing any checking later on in the code, then it's
fine if it's both A and B. If you are
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 03:07:53PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
I see it this way:
When perl sees a function call, and one of the arguments is a junction,
there are three basic options:
1) If the junction is wrapped up in some larger container, like a slurpy
list, pass it
Okay, so we've established that:
$x = any(3,4,5);
@l = $x.values.sort;
Leaves us with @l == (3,4,5), and that makes a fair amount of sense.
What do the following evaluate to:
@l1 = all(3,4,5).values.sort;
@l2 = one(3,4,5).values.sort;
@l3 = none(3,4,5).values.sort;
@l4 =
Rod Adams wrote:
Okay, so we've established that:
$x = any(3,4,5);
@l = $x.values.sort;
Leaves us with @l == (3,4,5), and that makes a fair amount of sense.
What do the following evaluate to:
@l1 = all(3,4,5).values.sort;
Same.
@l2 = one(3,4,5).values.sort;
Same.
@l3 = none(3,4,5).values.sort;
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 05:49:44PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
That would be disturbing if that's what happened.
Csay @what is just a shorthand for Cprint @what, \n.
So saying a junction is the same as printing it, which is a run-time
error.
Could easily be achieved
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:17:35PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
none($a, $a) == undef
True.
Isn't this one false in the case when $a is undef?
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:20:28PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: chromatic wrote:
:
: So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
: for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.
:
:
:
: Perl isn't a pure object-oriented language.
:
:
Larry wrote:
That's the basic problem with
0 $x 10
after all--the problem with rewriting that as
0 $x and $x 10
is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
entangled so that the always refer to the same abstract value.
That's certainly true. But I think the real
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
none($a, $a) == undef
True.
Isn't this one false in the case when $a is undef?
Yes. Apologies for not being more precise.
Damian
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 05:49:44PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
As you've written things above, Cfun is autothreaded (your option #3),
and we'll see two Cwarn output lines if $DEBUG is set.
The case of Damian's response in a prior message:
[...]
Could easily be achieved with a single layer of
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:13:53PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry wrote:
:
: That's the basic problem with
:
: 0 $x 10
:
: after all--the problem with rewriting that as
:
: 0 $x and $x 10
:
: is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
: entangled so
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:17:35PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
On a slightly different topic, do the following equivalences work:
[...]
none($a, $a) == undef
True.
Scott already caught (and Damian acknowledged) this one, it's false
if $a == undef.
none($a,$a,$b) ==
Damian Conway wrote:
.values tells you what raw values are inside the junction. The other
kind of introspection that's desirable is: what raw values can
*match* this junction. There would probably be a .states method for
that.
To see the difference between the two, consider:
my $ideal_partner
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 07:20:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
OTOH, what happens with...?
sub nofun($x is rw) {
$x += 2;
}
$y = 3 | 4;
nofun($y);
That's either an error (Can't modify constant) or the same as 5|6.
The
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
none(none($a,$b),none($c,$d)) == none($a,$b,$c,$d)
True.
H...
- none(none($a,$b) == none($a,$b,$c,$d),
none($c,$d) == none($a,$b,$c,$d))
- none(none($a == none($a,$b,$c,$d),
$b == none($a,$b,$c,$d)),
none($c ==
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
none(none($a,$b),none($c,$d)) == none($a,$b,$c,$d)
True.
H...
- none(none($a,$b) == none($a,$b,$c,$d),
none($c,$d) == none($a,$b,$c,$d))
RHS distributes first. So the expansion is this instead...
- none(none(none($a,$b),none($c,$d)) == $a,
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:13:53PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
0 $x 10
after all--the problem with rewriting that as
0 $x and $x 10
is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
entangled so that the always refer to the same abstract value.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:53:15PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
none(none($a,$b),none($c,$d)) == none($a,$b,$c,$d)
True.
H...
- none(none($a,$b) == none($a,$b,$c,$d),
none($c,$d) == none($a,$b,$c,$d))
RHS distributes first. So the
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
RHS distributes first. So the expansion is this instead...
Ummm, okay, but that's not what I interpreted from S09, where
it says that the left-most conjunction or injunction is
autothreaded first. In this I've also assumed that
$a == $b
is equivalent to
Larry Wall wrote:
But as far as English is concerned, sets are just
objects that have a singular outside and a (potentially) plural inside,
much like almost any other object. At least, that's how concrete
sets work.
Hmm. I would argue that most of the time, when English Speakers use sets
Just a quick question. The prettyprinter of Pugs (the thing that
handles the .perl method) currently prints out boolean true and
false as #t and #f, which is obviously not correct.
pugs (1 2, 2 1)
(#f, #t)
What should I do, though? Inventing two primitives, true and
false? Or is
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:01:52PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Uh oh, I hadn't caught that particular nuance. Is it indeed over the
: entire equi-precedential part of the operation, or just over the
: chained operators?
Just the chained operators, I think. For more general expression
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:29:36PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Just a quick question. The prettyprinter of Pugs (the thing that
: handles the .perl method) currently prints out boolean true and
: false as #t and #f, which is obviously not correct.
:
: pugs (1 2, 2 1)
: (#f, #t)
:
:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 07:20:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: For the case where a junction is stringified, I would imagine that the
: Junction's Cstr or Crepr (ala python) method gets called and it does
: something appropriate.
The Crepr method is called C.perl in Perl, assuming you
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:34:31PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 07:20:53PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
OTOH, what happens with...?
sub nofun($x is rw) {
$x += 2;
}
$y = 3 | 4;
nofun($y);
39 matches
Mail list logo
