I think that Jonathan meant for his reply to my message to go to the
list, so I am including it in its entirety, in my reply.
At 11:23 PM -0700 7/13/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
So the purpose of === is to provide a means of comparison that doesn't
This may go without saying, but ...
If $a === $b means what I think it does, then I believe that a
not-premature implementation optimization of === would be that it
always $a := $b if it was returning true, so that any future === of
$a and $b or aliases thereof could short-circuit with a =:=
On Friday 14 July 2006 00:30, Darren Duncan wrote:
This may go without saying, but ...
If $a === $b means what I think it does, then I believe that a
not-premature implementation optimization of === would be that it
always $a := $b if it was returning true, so that any future === of
$a and
At 12:30 AM -0700 7/14/06, Darren Duncan wrote:
If $a === $b means what I think it does, then I believe that a
not-premature implementation optimization of === would be that it
always $a := $b if it was returning true, so that any future === of
$a and $b or aliases thereof could short-circuit
Yuval Kogman writes:
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs
=:=.
I'm afraid I still don't get it.
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am
Darren Duncan schreef:
What I propose concerning non-premature === optimizing is a system
where, at any time that two appearances of the same immutable value
are compared with ===, they are immediately consolidated into a
single appearance.
That should only be done voluntarily. A bit like
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 11:42:24 +0100, Smylers wrote:
I'm afraid I still don't get it.
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am struggling to retain a feeling of _why_ I
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 00:30:20 -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
This may go without saying, but ...
...
This is a VM issue. It clarifies semantics, and the runtime VM may
choose to do this freely for simple values (but not for objects
which just pretend using .id).
In short: yes, the semantics
Yuval Kogman writes:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 11:42:24 +0100, Smylers wrote:
Or rather, while I can manage to read an explanation of what one of
these operators does and see how it applies to the variables in the
examples next to it, I am struggling to retain a feeling of _why_ I
would
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 00:08 +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Also, sometimes i am matching on behalf of my caller, this is very
common in dispatch algorithms, or things like tree visitors:
my @list = $tree.filter_children( $match ); # very generic and useful
It's really the fact that that's
Aaron Sherman schreef:
given $_ {
when $x {...}
}
or
$_ ~~ $x
Can that be written as .~~ $x?
--
Affijn, Ruud
Gewoon is een tijger.
Darren Duncan wrote:
Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
recommend having negated versions of all these various types of equality
tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be used very
frequently, I believe (and I have even tried to do so), and of
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are themselves immutable to all
levels of recursion, === then does a full deep copy like eqv. If at any
level we get a mutable object, then at that point it turns into =:= (a
trivial case) and stops.
( 1, 2.0, 3 ) === ( 1,2,3 )
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:34:26PM +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote:
: Aaron Sherman schreef:
:
: given $_ {
: when $x {...}
: }
:
: or
:
: $_ ~~ $x
:
: Can that be written as .~~ $x?
No, but you might just possibly get away with writing:
.infix:~~($x)
assuming that the $_.foo($x) SMD
Mark A. Biggar schreef:
Darren Duncan:
Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
equality tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be
used very frequently, I believe (and I have even tried
At 9:22 AM -0700 7/14/06, Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are
themselves immutable to all levels of
recursion, === then does a full deep copy like
eqv. If at any level we get a mutable object,
then at that point it turns into =:= (a trivial
Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are themselves immutable to all
levels of recursion, === then does a full deep copy like eqv. If at any
level we get a mutable object, then at that point it turns into =:= (a
trivial case) and stops.
( 1,
At 6:55 PM +0200 7/14/06, Dr.Ruud wrote:
say foo if $x !== $y;
into
say foo unless $x === $y;
And how about symmetry:
say foo unless $y === $x;
very unreliable.
Any equality or inequality operator is commutative, so it doesn't
matter whether you have $x and $y or $y and $x,
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:56:59PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
: Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
: recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
: equality tests. Eg, !== for ===, nev for eqv, etc. They would be
: used very frequently, I
Larry Wall schreef:
Dr.Ruud:
Aaron Sherman:
$_ ~~ $x
Can that be written as .~~ $x?
No, but you might just possibly get away with writing:
.infix:~~($x)
assuming that the $_.foo($x) SMD eventually fails over to foo($_,$x)
MMD. But that doesn't seem to be much of an improvement
At 12:55 PM -0700 7/14/06, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:56:59PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote (edited):
: Now, I didn't see them yet anywhere in Synopsis 3, but I strongly
: recommend having negated versions of all these various types of
: equality tests. Eg, !=== for ===, !eqv for
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 09:22:10 -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Assuming that all elements of $a and $b are themselves immutable to all
levels of recursion, === then does a full deep copy like eqv. If at any
level we get a mutable object, then at
that point it turns into
Darren Duncan schreef:
Dr.Ruud:
say foo if $x !== $y;
into
say foo unless $x === $y;
And how about symmetry:
say foo unless $y === $x;
Any equality or inequality operator is commutative,
If $x and $y are not of the same type, and one or both of the involved
types has its own
On 7/14/06, David Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs =:=.
It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
this is not perfect.
I think I understand it... (my only quibble with the
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:19:24PM -0600, David Green wrote:
: On 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs =:=.
: It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
: this is not perfect.
:
: I think I understand it... (my
Author: larry
Date: Fri Jul 14 17:00:12 2006
New Revision: 10215
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Differentiate === from eqv and clarify semantics.
Redefine cmp and add leg operator for old semantics.
Add ! metaoperator.
Fix random typos.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
At 5:00 PM -0700 7/14/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: larry
Date: Fri Jul 14 17:00:12 2006
New Revision: 10215
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Differentiate === from eqv and clarify semantics.
Redefine cmp and add leg operator for old semantics.
Add ! metaoperator.
Fix
27 matches
Mail list logo
