On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Matthew Walton wrote:
At least we had the sense to call them subroutines instead of functions.
Of course, that also upset the mathematicians, who wanted to call them
functions anyway. Go figure.
That might be because the mathematicians haven't heard of a variant of a
function
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array
Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over
such a list, may it be that on the first Clast one really
Michele Dondi wrote:
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Matthew Walton wrote:
At least we had the sense to call them subroutines instead of functions.
Of course, that also upset the mathematicians, who wanted to call them
functions anyway. Go figure.
That might be because the mathematicians haven't heard of a
Michele Dondi writes:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array
Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over
such a list, may it be
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:05:46AM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
: I'm sorry, but from a C++ background, overriding postcircumfix:( )
: feels far more natural to me than setting 'is default' on some method.
That only works for disambiguation if you know which .() to call in
the
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:05:46AM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
: I'm sorry, but from a C++ background, overriding postcircumfix:( )
: feels far more natural to me than setting 'is default' on some method.
That only works for disambiguation if you know which .() to call in
the first place. It
Larry Wall writes:
Any foo() can return a list. That list can be a Lazy list. So the
ordinary return can say:
return 0...;
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
Is it just me, or did you just return *2?
Luke Palmer wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
Any foo() can return a list. That list can be a Lazy list. So the
ordinary return can say:
return 0...;
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
Is it just me, or did you just return *2?
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 06:14:56PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: Larry Wall writes:
:
:
: Any foo() can return a list. That list can be a Lazy list. So the
: ordinary return can say:
:
:return 0...;
:
: to return an infinite
Larry Wall writes:
As far as I can recall we haven't renamed C.specs to anything else yet.
That sounds like a challenge ...
Smylers
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:03:53PM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: hm.. consider that:
:
: perl5:
:open $fh, 'file';
:$first_line = $fh;
:@remaining = $fh;
:
: perl6:
:$fh = open 'file';
:$first_line = $fh();
:@remaining = $fh();
:
: I thought about parallels between
Larry Wall wrote:
: of course, that analogy isn't going to work for true functions, which
: returns the same all the time, for some given set of arguments.
Oh, well, we pissed off the mathematicians long ago. :-)
At least we had the sense to call them subroutines instead of functions.
Of
12 matches
Mail list logo
