paths:
M S03-operators.pod
Log Message:
---
[S03] note that $x div $y == floor($x/$y) does not always hold
:
A S24-testing.pod
Log Message:
---
Very draft-y, very early S24 - testing
It is mostly meant as an encouragement for others to fill out the gaps. If you
want to do so, and don't have commit access yes, please tell me your
github ID.
(I'm just studying the intricacies of Perl 6, so please correct me if
i say something stupid or if this has already been discussed before.)
I was looking for the Perl 6 equivalent of
aaa =~ /a{1,3}/
and finally found that it's
aaa ~~ /a**{1 .. 3}/
This looked rather weird, so i asked on IRC
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the reply that it is similar to exponentiation of variables in math:
a ** 5 == a * a * a * a * a == a
It makes sense after it is explained and i do like the rationalization
of the range as a list-like range, instead of the comma,
please correct me if
i say something stupid or if this has already been discussed before.)
Another important loss if we were to go with 1..3 would be the
ability to have runtime-dependent ranges; e.g.:
/ ($ntimes) x**{$ntimes} /
That's exactly what i meant by something stupid.
Thanks
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
please correct me if
i say something stupid or if this has already been discussed before.)
Another important loss if we were to go with 1..3 would be the
ability to have runtime-dependent ranges; e.g.:
/ ($ntimes) x**{$ntimes} /
On 01/07/07, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
please correct me if
i say something stupid or if this has already been discussed before.)
Another important loss if we were to go with 1..3 would be the
ability to have
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/07/07, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ $ntimes := (\d+) x**{$ntimes} /
The examples of := usage in S05 seem to have notation such as this:
$ntimes := (\d+)
Yes, that is correct. I've been away from the Perl 6
Damian Conway schrieb:
If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places,
where the usability could be improved:
Say more
On 2/21/07, Thomas Wittek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway schrieb:
If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places,
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Damian Conway schrieb:
If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places,
where the usability could be
Luke Palmer wrote:
% as the mod operator is a good example of what you describe.
There's no need for mod to be a symbolic operator: when you read 5 % 3
you say 5 mod 3. Why would we not write 5 mod 3: it is just as
obvious what and how we are doing this operation. And % is uncommon
enough that
DC == Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC On 21/02/07, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Off-list]
DC Apparently not.
DC Just pretend I'm not here.
DC ;-)
we can't pretend as we can sense your mad scientist brain across the big
waters. there ain't enough aluminum foil
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
The current Y has at least four strikes against it:
* It's an ASCII version of a cute Unicode picture, but other than that,
the picture it doesn't remind you of zip at all, especially in
the Y form
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
'Course, if someone goes ahead and adds the Y combinator, one must
naturally begin to wonder what the YY combinator would be... :-)
Obviously it generates a function so anonymous that it can't even refer to
itself. I call it the depressed
Larry Wall schrieb:
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it zip?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible to create an
operator
Thomas Wittek wrote:
Larry Wall schrieb:
I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
Perl6 development: Why not just call it zip?!
There is a function called zip, wouldn't it be possible
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:49:20AM +0100, Thomas Wittek wrote:
: Larry Wall schrieb:
: I think the ¥ and Y operators are going to have to change to something else.
:
: Very probably I missed something as I'm only a distant observer of the
: Perl6 development: Why not just call it zip
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c - zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) - zip function
@a XX @b XX @c - cross operator
On 21/02/07, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Off-list]
Apparently not.
Just pretend I'm not here.
;-)
Damian
Damian Conway wrote:
I'd be more inclined to go
the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to
the corresponding function form:
@a ZZ @b ZZ @c - zip operator
ZZ(@a; @b; @c) - zip function
@a XX @b XX @c - cross operator
XX(@a; @b; @c) - cross
Speaking of which the advantage of, say, « over is that the former
is _one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as
well, and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of,
afaict, so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the
official one?!?
Do
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Rutger Vos wrote:
_one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well,
and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of, afaict,
so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the official one?!?
Do you even need to ask? It's
Speaking of which, the advantage of, say, « over is that the former
is _one_ character. But Y, compared to ¥, is one character only as
well, and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of,
afaict, so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the
official one?!?
I can't
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
All non-ASCII operators have ASCII equivalents:
¥ Y
«
»
Speaking of which the advantage of, say, « over is that the former is
_one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well,
and is even more visually distinctive
[ date ] 2001/03/30 | Friday | 11:16 PM
[ author ] John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russ Allbery wrote:
gcc and the literature both use "pure"; I'd recommend that.
John Porter wrote:
I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
not
Frank Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just because one programming paradigm happens to name it "pure" doesn't
mean that name should be carried over to other paradigms. In a
functional-programming context, sure, "pure" might be a good name. But
in a non-functional context, the name has
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 02:01:39PM -0600, Frank Tobin wrote:
John BEPPU, at 12:50 -0700 on Sat, 31 Mar 2001, wrote:
I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
not to worry... If anything, it might educate them. I
Frank Tobin wrote:
While the
term "pure", surely can be deemed "correct" in the context of functional
programming, it cannot in standard Perl programming.
considering context in which most Perl is written, "pure" has no
meaning, and hence I wouldn't consider it "correct".
No, "pure
Russ Allbery wrote:
It looks like I was misremembering; I remember a proposal for a "pure"
attribute in gcc, but it looks like the attribute used for functions with
no memory references and no side effects is "const" (a la C++). I think
"pure" was proposed for the somewhat relaxed version
At 03:30 PM 3/30/2001 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Dan Sugalski wrote:
:contained. Or possibly :irrelevant, since generally
speaking most people won't use it and the optimizer
will have to infer whether it's safe to not execute
the
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Doesn't have the right ring to it, unfortunately. It's not really
immutable, it just has no side-effects.
gcc and the literature both use "pure"; I'd recommend that.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Russ Allbery wrote:
gcc and the literature both use "pure"; I'd recommend that.
Excellent! So I wasn't pulling it out of... thin air. :-)
I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
--
John Porter
Like music? Then you're gonna
33 matches
Mail list logo
