John M. Dlugosz 提到:
= on Parallelized parameters and autothreading
use autoindex;
do { @c[$^i, $^j, $^k, $^l] = @a[$^i, $^j] * @b[$^k, $^l] };
Shouldn't those be semicolons? Ditto for subsequent examples.
Also, what does the do do? I think it is only meaningful if there was
Audrey Tang 提到:
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
= on Parallelized parameters and autothreading
use autoindex;
do { @c[$^i, $^j, $^k, $^l] = @a[$^i, $^j] * @b[$^k, $^l] };
Shouldn't those be semicolons? Ditto for subsequent examples.
Also, what does the do do? I think it is only meaningful
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:37PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: Sanity-check before I check it in?
I'm probably not the best person to ask about *sanity*, but it looks
pretty darn good to me. :)
Larry
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
But about your answer, automatically called with no arguments. Isn't
that what a bare closure normally does anyway? Say, I introduced extra
{} just for scoping or naming the block, where a statement is expected.
foo;
bar;
{ my $temp= foo; bar(temp); } #forget about
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
I just finished another pass on S09v24, and in this posting I note
editorial issues with the file that can easily be corrected. This is as
opposed to subjects for deep discussion, which I'll save for later and
individual posts.
= on Mixing subscripts
Within a C.[]
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:04:47AM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: I guess the wording in the last parenthesized parens is insufficiently
: explicit, and maybe we should change it to say that it's really a syntax
: error to use placeholder blocks in statement positions. Sounds reasonable?
Yes,
Larry Wall 提到:
Yes, unless we decide we need something like that for list
comprehensions. Maybe looping modifiers allow placeholders in what
would otherwise be an error...
Sure. How about this:
Use of a placeholder parameter in statement-level blocks triggers a
syntax error, because the
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:43:58AM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
Larry Wall 提到:
Yes, unless we decide we need something like that for list
comprehensions. Maybe looping modifiers allow placeholders in what
would otherwise be an error...
Sure. How about this:
Use of a placeholder parameter
Larry Wall 提到:
I was originally thinking just loop modifiers, but I suppose
{ say $^x } if foo();
also can be made to make some kind of sense, in the same way that
if foo() - $x { say $x }
is supposed to work.
Right. I've committed the clarification (as a new section).
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:57AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, current STD has the inside of () and [] as statementlist,
which throws away all but the last statement. Arguably [] at least
should probably be semilist though, and maybe () too.
my @x := [{1+1}; {2+2}]; @x is currently
Nicholas Clark 提到:
So if the semicolon is replaced with a comma, like this,
my @x := [{1+1}, {2+2}];
the {} acts as a hash constructor, and @x is [{2 = undef}, {4 = undef}] ?
No, {} acts as a closure constructor, and @x contains two closures that
returns 2 and 4 respectively when
Thom Boyer 提到:
Audrey Tang wrote:
$code = { a = 1, $b, $c == print };
The examples above are from LS04/Statement parsing.
According to those rules, that last assignment to $code seems to be a
hash, not code. Or does the C == mean that the contents aren't a
list?
Correct, because ==
Regarding the text just before where you rewrote,
then the compiler adds defaults for you, something like:
- $x = @foo.shape[0].range,
$y = @foo.shape[1].range { @foo[$x;$y] }
where each such range is autoiterated for you.
That doesn't really work. If
Audrey Tang audreyt-at-audreyt.org |Perl 6| wrote:
I guess the wording in the last parenthesized parens is insufficiently
explicit, and maybe we should change it to say that it's really a syntax
error to use placeholder blocks in statement positions. Sounds reasonable?
Cheers,
Audrey
14 matches
Mail list logo
