On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:02 AM, GitHub nore...@github.com wrote:
Of note is that this spec is in Pod6, because that's the version of Pod
I'm familiar with, I can't be bothered to convert to a far less familiar
POD at the moment, and frankly the specs should be in Pod6 in the first
place :) .
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:00 PM, philippe.beauch...@bell.ca wrote:
Once the operator is in rakudo, though... I gather I /could/ do something
like the following
^ [ !abc* name ] $
And this would in effect ensued that the sequence abc doesn't exist
anywhere across the match for name
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl writes:
+1.1 == 11/100# True
New math? :)
Eirik
--
O misbegotten pile of festering aardvark's fewmets! O vile unwashed ill-doer!
I blast you with the curse of the mad witch of Wickham! May every boychild
born to you , and to your sons, and to your
David Green david.gr...@telus.net writes:
The soft way -- being able to cast $dogwood as a Dog and treat it
unambiguously so, then to do the same thing treating it as a Tree
object -- is the most flexible. Split-personality Dogs may be rare,
but I can imagine wanting to call common utility
Michael Zedeler mich...@zedeler.dk writes:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
How do pred and succ work when given Complex values?
By adding/substracting 1 from the real part, I'd say. Don't know if that
actually makes sense.
It doesn't, because succ should always give the
Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org writes:
In all other cases of quote like constructs are the semantics are
explicit first (think of Q, qx, m, , «), the delimiter comes later.
Changing that all of a sudden seems very unintuitive and wrong.
Thing is, comments are not quote-like. All of the
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl writes:
statement, or if you want to attach multiple statements. you must either
use the curly form or surround the entire expression in brackets of some
sort:
-@primes = (do (do $_ if .prime) for 1..100);
+@primes = do $_ if prime($_) for 1..100;
jason switzer jswit...@gmail.com writes:
[warning: light-hearted humor ahead]
There's also the notion that perl6's scope has creeped to accommodate a
large enough set of ideas. Seems like an appropriate logo:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2hl=enq=kitchen+sink
I kinda liked that one
Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com writes:
So $a -= $b is equivalent to $b = $a, not -($a = $b). OK.
I'd suggest choosing a better character for the meta-operator (one
that conveys the meaning of reversal of order rather than opposite
value); but I don't think that there is one.
A
pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl writes:
+C--prelude=Perl6-autoloop-no-print. Since eager matching is used, if you
+need to pass something like:
+ ++foo -bar ++foo baz ++/foo ++/foo
+you'll end up with
+
+ %+OPTSfoo = '-bar ++foo baz';
That doesn't look very eager to me.
Eirik
--
jerry gay jerry@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 13:16, Eirik Berg Hanssen
eirik-berg.hans...@allverden.no wrote:
That doesn't look very eager to me.
it's eager for the match to close, which is the opposite of greedy
matching. in perl 5 documentation, it's called non-greedy
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, so let's look at the general problem. The structure is this:
doSomething();
while (someCondition())
{
doSomethingElse();
doSomething();
}
...and you want to factor out the doSomething() call so that it only
has to be specified once.
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:37:41PM +0200, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: -C infix:where , sequential junctional and operator
: +C infix:also , sequential junctional and operator
:
: -EXPR where EXPR where EXPR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
-C infix:where , sequential junctional and operator
+C infix:also , sequential junctional and operator
-EXPR where EXPR where EXPR ...
+EXPR also EXPR also EXPR ...
Can be used to construct ANDed patterns with the same semantics as
C infix: , but
One more data point?
I might want a newline or I might want an ORS. The former, say()
gives me. The latter, print() provides.
I cannot imagine ever wanting a mixture of those, and if I ever do,
I expect I'll prefer to say what I mean:
# modulo syntax:
{ temp ORS //= \n; print @args
Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:56 (+1000):
$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
$propped = [but] $value, @properties;
With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple == can
Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wonder now if that can just be
my $password = any('a'..'z') x 5;
Wouldn't that generate a junction, and so need a .pick?
my $password = (any('a'..'z') x 5).pick;
Or perhaps just leave it a junction, to use as a generator:
my $any_password
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$re1 = /^ -[x]* x -[x]* $/; # match a string with exactly one
'x' in it.
$re2 = /^ -[y]* y -[y]* $/; # ditto 'y'
$re3 = /^ -[z]* z -[z]* $/; # ditto 'z'
$re7 = none($re1, $re2, $re3); # matches if there are 0 or 2+ of
each of x,y,z.
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$re1 = /^ -[x]* x -[x]* $/; # match a string with exactly one
'x' in it.
$re2 = /^ -[y]* y -[y]* $/; # ditto 'y'
$re3 = /^ -[z]* z -[z]* $/; # ditto 'z'
$re7 = none($re1
Eirik Berg Hanssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$re1 = /^ -[x]* x -[x]* $/; # match a string with exactly one
'x' in it.
$re2 = /^ -[y]* y -[y]* $/; # ditto 'y'
$re3 = /^ -[z]* z -[z
Ashley Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
Particularly focus on:
2..sqrt($x)
What the hell does that mean? Do you get a junction of lists out?
Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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?
Since it is numerical comparison, it is false as long as $a == 0.
(I would hope.)
Eirik
--
So
Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 11:10:13AM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
No, consider
$a = 1;
$b = 2;
one($a, $a, $b) # false
one($b) # true
Right. Evidently I need to sleep real soon. :-)
However, is there a way to
Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rod Adams wrote:
Does
($k, $v) == pop %hash;
or
($k, $v) == %hash.pop;
make sense to anyone except me?
Makes sense to me. Although I would be more inclined to think of pop
as returning a pair - but does a pair in list context turn into a list
of
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: What happens when the Pascal programmer declares
:
: my int @ints is shape(-10..10);
:
: Does it blow up?
No.
: If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1 or the
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 04:18:19PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: Anyway, this all implies that use of a role as a method name defaults to
: returning whether the type in question matches the subtype.
Why? Why should it be a method?
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 04:05:25PM +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
: I for one would appreciate the visual clue that we access properties
: and subclasses as roles ($foo~~bareword), while we access attributes
: (with accessors) as methods
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Eirik wrote:]
Let us see ... somewhat speculative and probably short-of-the-mark
generalization coming up:
macro infix:[ ($lhs, $op, $rhs)
is parsed(/(Perl6.expr) \] (Perl6.expr)/) {
return {
$op($lhs, $rhs)
};
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Cool stuff. In my usual pedantic sort of way, I'll go through the
message and fix everything you said. For educational purposes only, of
course :-)
Thanks :-)
For further education, some more questions/comments, if I may:
# Let's say Cis
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hmm, since we're requiring no whitespace between a variable and it's
subscript, this should be possible:
if Dough [eqn 4] Douglas {...}
Lisp! :-)
Well, almost. Now this would be lisp-y:
if $test [$moon.is_waxing ? infix: : infix:=] $target
30 matches
Mail list logo
