Larry Wall wrote:
: If yes, then (1)[0] means the same as 1.[0] and 1.[0][0][0]. If no,
: (1)[0] is a runtime error just like 1.[0] -- i.e. unable to find the
: matching .[] multisub under Int or its superclasses.
Maybe we should just let someone poke a Subscriptable role into some
class
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:52:38PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: : If yes, then (1)[0] means the same as 1.[0] and 1.[0][0][0]. If no,
: : (1)[0] is a runtime error just like 1.[0] -- i.e. unable to find the
: : matching .[] multisub under Int or its superclasses.
:
:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
What does p6l think? (What does @Larry think?)
I favor #3 as syntax error.
But note $TSa == all( none(@Larry), one($p6l) ) or so :)
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-11 11:45 (-0500):
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
#2 implies that (1)[0][0][0][0] == 1
#1 means that (1)[0] == 1 and (1)[0][0] is an error
#1 also means that ($aref)[0] is
On 5/11/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-11 11:45 (-0500):
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
#2 implies that (1)[0][0][0][0] == 1
#1 means that (1)[0] == 1 and
My perspective from PDL is that (1)[0][0][0]...[0] should evaluate
to 1. The artificial distinction between a scalar and an array of
length 1 (in each dimension) is the source of endless hassles, and it's
a pretty simple DWIM to allow indexing of element 0 of any unused
dimension. That makes
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 12:45, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
where we're at so far:
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
It may or may not help, but I
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
: where we're at so far:
:
: 1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
: 2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
: 3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
:
: We
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 01:11:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
: where we're at so far:
:
: 1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
: 2. scalars are
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:02AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Hm? Under #2, no matter whether @foo is (1) or (1,2), the construct
: (@foo)[0] would always means @foo.[0]. Not sure how the length of @foo
: matters here.
Tell you what, let's require P5's (...)[] to be translated to [...][],
so
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:12:41PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:02AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Hm? Under #2, no matter whether @foo is (1) or (1,2), the construct
: (@foo)[0] would always means @foo.[0]. Not sure how the length of @foo
: matters here.
Tell
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:19:11AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Sure (and done). Now that #1 is eliminated, the question is now
: whether a simple scalar can be treated as a small (one-element) array
: reference, much like a simple pair can be treated as a small
: (one-element) hash reference.
:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
where we're at so far:
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
(1)[0] means
13 matches
Mail list logo
