Author: larry
Date: Tue Feb 5 09:15:04 2008
New Revision: 14500
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Clarify that lhs of list assignment is list of containers, not thunks
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Author: larry
Date: Tue Feb 5 09:55:29 2008
New Revision: 14501
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
Added named placeholders using $:foo twigil; idea from cognominal++:
Placeholder subs can now also autoadd [EMAIL
+++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.podTue Feb 5 09:55:29 2008
@@ -2791,7 +2791,7 @@
are insufficient for defining the pecking order of code. Note that
you can bind to either a bare block or a pointy block. Binding to a
bare block conveniently leaves the topic in C$_, so the final form
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:42:35AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: +++ doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.podTue Feb 5 09:55:29 2008
: @@ -2791,7 +2791,7 @@
: are insufficient for defining the pecking order of code. Note that
: you can bind to either a bare block or a pointy block. Binding to
Larry Wall wrote:
: Is it forbidden to use placeholder parameters in conjunction with
: my? Or would it simply not do anything useful? I ask because Do
: what I mean would seem to imply that 'my Dog $^foo' would specify
: $^foo's type as 'Dog'. Though if you start doing too much of that,
:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 11:57:37AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: : Is it forbidden to use placeholder parameters in conjunction with
: : my? Or would it simply not do anything useful? I ask because Do
: : what I mean would seem to imply that 'my Dog $^foo' would specify
:
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides $^_ is just uglier than anything else I've seen today...
lol -- I thought of it as a rather cute peeking-wink with a cauliflower
ear, but that's probably much more cutesiness than we want to encourage
in our language design.
At 9:15 AM -0800 2/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+The left side is evaluated completely for its sequence of containers before
+any assignment is done. Therefore this:
+
+my $a = 0; my @b;
+($a, @b[$a]) = 1, 2;
+
+assigns 2 to @b[0], not @b[1].
Personally, I think this is a
On Feb 5, 2008 5:34 PM, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+my $a = 0; my @b;
+($a, @b[$a]) = 1, 2;
+
+assigns 2 to @b[0], not @b[1].
Personally, I think this is a particularly welcome change.
It is certainly less surprising, I'd say. But is there a LET*
analogue to do it the
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 02:34:35PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
At 9:15 AM -0800 2/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+The left side is evaluated completely for its sequence of containers before
+any assignment is done. Therefore this:
+
+my $a = 0; my @b;
+($a, @b[$a]) = 1, 2;
+
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:42:28PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Feb 5, 2008 5:34 PM, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: +my $a = 0; my @b;
: +($a, @b[$a]) = 1, 2;
: +
: +assigns 2 to @b[0], not @b[1].
:
: Personally, I think this is a particularly welcome change.
:
: It is
On Feb 5, 2008 8:11 PM, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh wait, I lied. You can get pugs to do it with:
my $a = 0; my @b; (lazy { VAR($a) }, lazy { VAR(@b[$a]) }) = 1,2; say
@b.join(':')
Now just put that in a macro...
Ah, macros, is there no problem you can't solve? :)
Thanks!
12 matches
Mail list logo
