Hi,
I think, that David's version is matches with my opinion. I don't think,
that beginners would be a better name for it, but maybe more
practical, as it's a more evident name.
Bye,
Andras
David Storrs wrote:
On Jun 15, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
And here they are...
Hi,
Hi,
I think, that David's version is matches with my opinion. I don't
think, that beginners would be a better name for it, but maybe more
practical, as it's a more evident name.
Hmmm, I think beginner is a little negative. What about professional
Perl5 programmers, who wish to learn
Hi,
Fagyal Csongor wrote:
I think, that David's version is matches with my opinion. I don't
think, that beginners would be a better name for it, but maybe more
practical, as it's a more evident name.
Hmmm, I think beginner is a little negative. What about professional
Perl5 programmers,
Currently in Pugs *zip has no signature -- it simply rewrites its
arguments into the listfix (i.e. Y) function.
That is bad because it can't be introspected, and you can't define
something like that yourself. It also makes it uncompilable to Parrot
as I don't control the runloop there. :)
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:40:31PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Currently in Pugs *zip has no signature -- it simply rewrites its
: arguments into the listfix (i.e. Y) function.
:
: That is bad because it can't be introspected, and you can't define
: something like that yourself. It also makes
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
AFAIK, this is the only signature that would work for making greet a
class method; but note that I'm not using $class, and I'd expect the
compiler to
[Sent off-group by mistake. On #perl6 the impression was that now Pipe
is becoming a Role for things that can lazily be read from; and thus any
filehandle or lazy list fulfills them. Larry, please help us understand
if this is the case.]
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:53:41AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
This does imply that we can pipe into a subscript somehow.
Why? Or rather, why is that desirable?
If we choose something like () for our placeholder meaning pipe into
this location, then
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]; @b; @c]
is the same as
@foo[()] == @a == @b ==
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 07:24:42PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: [Sent off-group by mistake. On #perl6 the impression was that now Pipe
: is becoming a Role for things that can lazily be read from; and thus any
: filehandle or lazy list fulfills them. Larry, please help us understand
: if this is the
On 6/16/05, Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
Aside from the fact that I don't think this is the right way to
specify class methods...
AFAIK,
my $x = 3;
my $y = \$x;
say $y + 10;
$y++;
say $y;
say $x;
Currently in Pugs they print:
13
4
3
Is this sane? What is the scalar reference's semantics in face of a
stringification and numification? I assume that array/hash references
simply pass on to the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:26:31PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
Aside from the fact that I don't think this is the right way to
specify class
Larry Wall wrote:
You must
specify @foo[[;[EMAIL PROTECTED] or @foo[()] == @bar to get the special mark.
I'm uncomfortable with the specific syntax of @a[()] because generated
code might sometimes want to generate an empty list, and special-casing
that sort of thing is always a pain (and
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:26:31PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
Aside from the fact that I don't think this is the right way to
specify
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:05:22PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: You must
: specify @foo[[;[EMAIL PROTECTED] or @foo[()] == @bar to get the special
mark.
:
: I'm uncomfortable with the specific syntax of @a[()] because generated
: code might sometimes want to generate an
On 6/16/05, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I think that subs and methods *should* complain about all unused
non-optional parameters *except* invocants.
This brings up something I've been thinking about. I sometimes write a
method in Perl 5 that does something or other and then
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:05:11AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 01:26:31PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Say I have a class method in FooClass, callable as FooClass.greet():
method greet(Class $class: ) {
say Hello, FooClass!;
}
Aside
Patrick wrote:
Somehow I read these as though the original poster was correct --
i.e., one creates a class method for FooClass as either
method greet(Class $class:) { say Hello!; }
Yes. That will work, but it's not the recommended solution.
or
method greet(FooClass $class:) { say
So, I was about to write the following test for Pugs:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
my sub factn (Int $acc, $i) {
return $acc if $i $n;
factn( $acc * $i, $i+1);
}
factn(1, 1);
}
When I thought to check the apocalypses and exegeses and, what do you know, I
couldn't find
On 6/16/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I was about to write the following test for Pugs:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
my sub factn (Int $acc, $i) {
return $acc if $i $n;
factn( $acc * $i, $i+1);
}
factn(1, 1);
}
When I thought to check the
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/16/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I was about to write the following test for Pugs:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
my sub factn (Int $acc, $i) {
return $acc if $i $n;
factn( $acc * $i, $i+1);
}
factn(1, 1);
On 6/16/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or maybe a splat
@foo[*]
Or go with the parens with something in them to indicate the positive
absence of something.
@foo[(*)]
Anyone else want to have a go at this bikeshed?
You know, before I read this part of the message, I
Suppose I have a simple, single argument recursive function:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
return 1 if $n == 0;
return $n * factorial $n;
}
Can I write that as:
sub factorial (Int $n:) {
return 1 when 0;
return $n * factorial $n;
}
NB. Yes, I know it's a pathological
On Thursday 09 June 2005 12:21, John Macdonald wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 06:41:55PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandla
wrote:
Edward Cherlin wrote:
That means that we have to straighten out the functions
that can return either a Boolean or an item of the
argument type. Comparison functions
24 matches
Mail list logo
