On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 23:43:43 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
But I'd really like to get this stuff done at compile time wherever possible.
If I write this:
validate( credit_card_number: $number );
it should blow up at compile time, right?
So should MMD: The type signatures are
Well, right now one of the great things about looking at the wall to
read the clock and see the time, is that you know that based on the time
of day and the time of year, and where you are, roughly how far through
the actual solar day it is. It's crude, but useful. Just ask a Dairy
Farmer.
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:47:18AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: That could be made to work by defining constant to mean you can assign
: to it if it's undefined. But then it gets a little harder to reason
: about it if $pi
Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, that's a convenient escape. But really, arguments from principle
aside, the underlying question is what someone will see if they look
at 1.e5, and I suspect most people will see a number with an exponent.
This is a spot where Ruby violates Least Surprise, at least for
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:56:35PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
:
: : If not a special form, should this work?
: :
: : my $pi is constant;
: : $pi = 3;
:
: That could be made to work by defining constant to mean you can assign
: to it if it's undefined. But
On Aug 17, 2005, at 00:29 , Larry Wall wrote:
which gives us these possibilities.
大務big / (perform) duty
Perl6 to people here.
太夢fat, big / dream
Perl6 for the rest of us.
対夢oppose, against, pair / dream
Pugs?
待夢wait / dream
Perl6 to Oreilly ?
Hi,
Yuval Kogman nothingmuch at woobling.org writes:
So now that the skeptics can see why this is important, on the
design side I'd like to ask for ideas on how the code serialization
looks...
sub { $?DOM.document.write(phello world!/p) }.emit(
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:03:22AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
: Hurry up and finish. I want to use this language, darnit! And yes, I
: know about pugs, obviously, but for production usage I need less of a
: moving target ;)
Yes, Perl 6 is a moving target--but one of the most bothersome facts
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 23:43 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
But I'd really like to get this stuff done at compile time wherever
possible. If I write this:
validate( credit_card_number: $number );
it should blow up at compile time, right?
Does that depend on how closed you want Perl 6 to
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:02:23AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 23:43 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
But I'd really like to get this stuff done at compile time wherever
possible. If I write this:
validate( credit_card_number: $number );
BTW, the colon is on the left:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:31:12PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Not only that, but what if what I want is a named constnat undef value?
If we went with bind once rather than write once semantics then after
my $foo is readonly := undef;
$foo could not be rebound, but saying
my $foo
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
In other words, you could desugar
sub foo ($a = 1) {...}
to
sub foo ($a) {
$a = 1 unless exists $a;
...
}
I like this. Can we go for it, at least for this week? :)
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:15:23AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
In other words, you could desugar
sub foo ($a = 1) {...}
to
sub foo ($a) {
$a = 1 unless exists $a;
...
}
I like this. Can we
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:24:40 +, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
Hi,
Yuval Kogman nothingmuch at woobling.org writes:
So now that the skeptics can see why this is important, on the
design side I'd like to ask for ideas on how the code serialization
looks...
sub {
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:22:20PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
sub foo { $?DOM.document.write(...) }
BEGIN { foo() }; # error, there's no $?DOM object
# at compile-time!
Unless you're compiling in the browser ;-)
Which... is possible, and that's how I
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:15:23AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:09:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: In other words, you could desugar
:
: sub foo ($a = 1) {...}
:
: to
:
: sub foo ($a) {
: $a = 1 unless exists $a;
: ...
: }
:
: I like
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:17:51AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Also, preemptively -- I think the corresponding delete $a is insane,
: as it would just lift up the constancy problem one level, defeating the
: no rebinding restriction.
I think in general the only time you're allowed to monkey
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:26:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Sure. Though it probably also wants to stay as metadata associated
with the signature, since part of the reason for putting it in
the signature in the first place is so that optimizers can install
constants on the caller end, at
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:36:30AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:26:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Sure. Though it probably also wants to stay as metadata associated
: with the signature, since part of the reason for putting it in
: the signature in the first place
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 01:36:30AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
BEGIN {
foo := a Sub is stub {
($a) := ?Internals::GETARGS();
$a = 1 unless exists $a;
# real body begins here
...
};
}
Er, sorry, the ($a) would need a my() scope
20 matches
Mail list logo
