On 2008-May-27, at 8:32 pm, Jon Lang wrote:
[...]
Would it be reasonable to allow hashes to use .[] syntax as something
of a shortcut for .iterator in list context, thus allowing
autosorted hashes to partake of the same sort of dual cardinal/ordinal
lookup capabilities that lists with
On 2008-Apr-30, at 1:29 pm, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Apr 30, 2008, at 15:14 , Jon Lang wrote:
On a side note, I'd like to make a request of the Perl 6 community
with regard to coding style: could we please have adverbal names that
are, well, adverbs? is :strict Dog brings to my mind
On 2008-May-27, at 9:40 am, Dave Whipp wrote:
TSa wrote:
method inch
{
yield $inch = $.mm * 25.4;
self.mm = $inch / 25.4;
}
Would you regard that as elegant?
That looks functionally incorrect to my eyes: if the caller resumes
at the time of the yield
David Green wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
Would it be reasonable to allow hashes to use .[] syntax as something
of a shortcut for .iterator in list context, thus allowing
autosorted hashes to partake of the same sort of dual cardinal/ordinal
lookup capabilities that lists with user-defined array
Jon Lang wrote:
This approach could be functionally equivalent to the proxy object
approach, but with a potentially more user-friendly interface. That
is,
sub foo (*$value) { yadda }
might be shorthand for something like:
sub foo () is rw {
return new Proxy:
FETCH = method {
David Green wrote:
It seems overly complex to me, but perhaps I'm missing good reasons for such
an approach. I see lvalue subs mainly as syntactic sugar:
foo(42); # arg using normal syntax
foo == 42; # arg using feed syntax
foo = 42; # arg using assignment
G'day p6l and p5p,
I'm currently working on the 'autodie' pragma for Perl 5, which is
essentially 'Fatal' but with lexical scope. It's similar to the 'fatal'
pragma described in S04/Exceptions.
autodie is implementing an exception hierarchy for in-built functions.
Essentially we have a
