Two questions:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Why did we change { %hash } from making a shallow copy of a hash to
the code that returns %hash?
Luke
It's *a* correct way. But redundant in this particular case.
The universal new() would handle the one-argument call exactly the same
as your overloaded new() does. Presumably, however, the one-argument variant
would do something else as well.
Some people will need to call the constructor with
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13.19, Joe Gottman wrote:
Juerd asked:
2+ args: interpolate specified operator
1 arg: return that arg
0 args: fail (i.e. thrown or unthrown exception depending on use
fatal)
Following this logic, does join( , @foo) with [EMAIL PROTECTED] being 0
On 6/1/05, Deborah Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still in the camp of those wanting each operator to know its own identity
value (perhaps in terms of a trait). The identity of multiplication (say) is
always 1, after all, and it doesn't change depending on when you do
multiplication in
Deborah Pickett wrote:
You are going to see empty lists more often than you think in expressions like
$product = [*] @array;
and having to write that as
$product = [*] 1, @array;
just to protect against a common case doesn't exactly flaunt Perl's DWIMmery
to me. I *have* to write 1 there,
The universal new() would handle the one-argument call exactly the
same as your overloaded new() does.
Is that correct? S12 says...
All classes inherit a default new constructor from Object.
It expects all arguments to be named parameters initializing
attributes of the same name.
...
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
$ordered = [] @array;
If @array is empty, is $ordered supposed to be true or false? It
certainly shouldn't be anything but those two, because is a boolean
operator.
I read that (mathematically) as for all i, for all j such that j-i=1,
a_ia_j,
Carl Franks wrote:
The universal new() would handle the one-argument call exactly the
same as your overloaded new() does.
Is that correct? S12 says...
All classes inherit a default new constructor from Object.
It expects all arguments to be named parameters initializing
attributes of
Carl Franks wrote:
However, if I allowed the default 'new' to handle that case, then the
BUILD submethod has to be aware of that.
I thought it would be cleaner to 'document' the special case with a
seperate constructor, and also not require any special-case logic in the
BUILD submethod.
Is that
On 6/1/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
$ordered = [] @array;
If @array is empty, is $ordered supposed to be true or false? It
certainly shouldn't be anything but those two, because is a boolean
operator.
I read that
xOn 5/31/05, Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob Kinyon wrote:
I would love to see a document (one per editor) that describes the
Unicode characters in use and how to make them. The Set implementation
in Pugs uses (at last count) 20 different Unicode characters as
operators.
I have
Hi,
You have to either supply an initial value or refactor your logic not
to allow an empty @array (as in the first case). If you want it some
other way, there are far too many special cases we have to work with,
some of which are just mathematically impossible.
I think `fail`ing is the best
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
I read that (mathematically) as for all i, for all j such that j-i=1,
a_ia_j, which is certainly satisfied by an empty list.
Yep, it sure is. Now tell Perl to read it that way for any operator.
Should _I_?!? ;-)
I wonder what a logic-oriented
Sam Vilain wrote:
I also don't like implicit normalisation to seconds
underneath the hood when I'm doing basic date calculations, and
the way that the DateTime base class is inherantly based on the
Gregorian calendar.
I concur in this view. From a typing point of view there should
be some
Luke Palmer wrote:
For something like:
$ordered = [] @array;
If @array is empty, is $ordered supposed to be true or false? It
certainly shouldn't be anything but those two, because is a boolean
operator.
I have no problem with 3-state logic systems (true, false, undef) if
this is
Gaal Yahas wrote:
How do I specify the signature of a context-sensitive function?
sub foo() returns (what?) {
return want ~~ Scalar ?? cheap_integer_result :: List_of_Sheep;
}
If it were two subs, one would is returns Int and the other List of
Sheep. The draft S29 uses
Hi,
I just would like to share it with you. We had a weekend at the lake
Balaton on the last weekend, where I had a talk about Perl 6. The guys
liked it (the girls had sunbath during the event :), and one of them
(Poetro) said the summary: then we can say, that
Perl 6 is an operator
Juerd wrote:
Thomas Sandlass skribis 2005-05-28 17:34 (+0200):
I propose %hash = { key = :\$variable, foo = 'bar' };
:\$variable looks like many things to me, but not an alias.
Let's forget that idea, because I have a bunch of better ones!
$hash = { key = \ $variable but rw , foo =
$ordered = [] @array;
This is asking Is @array ordered? In the case of a 0-element or
1-element array, the answer is It is not disordered, which means
$ordered is true.
$ordered = ! [!] @array;
Rob
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 03:42:57PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
I've made a start on this. See ext/Date in pugs. I don't think that
your views are necessarily contrary.
That's what I'm looking for. Thank you!
The biggest reason I didn't use DateTime was that I found it awkward
for the common
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19.37, Damian Conway wrote:
Deborah Pickett wrote:
Someone please convince me otherwise.
So what you want is not an identity value as default (which isn't even
possible for many operators, as Luke pointed out), but a predictable
failure value as default, so you can
Further woes, arguments, questions:
In regards to @array, A5 says A leading @ matches like a bare array...
but this is an over-generalization. A leading '@' merely indicates the
rule is found in an array. @array[3] would be the same as
$fourth_element_of_array, assuming those two values are
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:52:36AM -0400, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
Further woes, arguments, questions:
In regards to @array, A5 says A leading @ matches like a bare array...
but this is an over-generalization. A leading '@' merely indicates the
rule is found in an array. @array[3]
23 matches
Mail list logo
