]] - $ ($key = $value) { ... }
- Ashley Winters
.
given @something {
when $this { ... }# @something ~~ $this
against $that { ... }# $that ~~ @something
}
That would help keep the ~~ DWIM table from trying to guess on which
side you really wanted @something on.
- Ashley Winters
one(@array) - if they're all the same,
it's more than 1, otherwise it's 0.
Yeah, that would've been cool. Are we left with asserting
Call(.members »=:=« one(.members))? That'd be pretty close to the
original elegance.
Ashley Winters
(or a standard function which a user
reimplemented -- you never know).
- Ashley Winters
to
implictly parallelize for us:
my @answer = @jobs.»();
Which would run them in parallel automatically, if possible.
- Ashley Winters
as
one way to ask that sort of question.
So, if ^Dog describes a Dog which defines a $dog, do we need an
undescribed() function?
Just kidding... kinda.
Ashley Winters
returns Cnil but
E::UndefinedValue or something. Thus completes the circle of
definedness.
Ashley Winters
-- guessing realistic syntax
Base.meta.add_method(
do_it = method ($arg) {
say doing $arg!;
});
# or, just add it to a single instance
$x.meta.add_method(
do_it = method ($arg) {
say doing $arg!;
});
Did I miss any good ones? Or bad ones? :)
Ashley Winters
you asked Larry how to make a symbolic function call, lately?;
dynamic(notcode, static({ $_+1 }, [1,2,3,4,5]));
Same.
Just my 2¢
Ashley Winters
~~ color('magenta')
Interesting proposal. Is there any motivation for people not to simply
flip the argument-order to take advantage of the right-wise
determinism? Or is that actually a benefit?
'#F0F' ~~ $color ?? 'yes' !! 'no';
Ashley Winters
when strict inferencing is
in place. That's exactly how I'd want it to work when optimization
and/or stricture is in place. It'd be a *very* nice compiler feature.
Ashley Winters
should really be the Interpolation behavior,
and Representation should be a lossless but readable version of
Serialization, though I'm clearly wrong, since I can't defend it. No
worries. I'll come around to see the light. Someday. :)
Ashley Winters
presentation Role.
Ashley Winters
: use sadistic
inferencing; either of those declarations can disregard my potential
for runtime tomfoolery, and abort the compiliation when there's
something illogical.
Ashley Winters
On 9/25/05, Ashley Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/25/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under strict type inferrencing, i'd expect this to be a compile time
error:
I quoted but didn't read close enough. You DID say strict type
inferencing. Never mind. :)
Ashley Winters
On 9/25/05, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 10:59:38 -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
The Stringification of a UnixEpochTimestamp should probably be the
same as its Integerization -- 12345678900. However, the Interpolation
of it should be the locale-specific POSIX
with ?? is !!
(cond) ?? (if_true) !! (if_false)
Ashley Winters
for push?
@array ,= $foo ; @array = @array, $foo;
Ashley Winters
the = form to:
my Str $x is constant('foo');
Why isn't the late binding version
my Str $x is ro('foo');
In contrast to the 'is rw' trait? When I say 'is constant', can I be
rewarded for all my extra typing with some well-defined compile-time
optimization?
Ashley Winters
On 5/27/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way to get an anonymous rw scalar, is there?
Can't the [] and {} syntaxes be considered aliases for new Array(...)
and new Hash(...)?
my $x := new int = 10; # looks like it should work
Ashley Winters
inclined to use ./method for $self.method. After a decade of using
unix shells, typing ./ is closer to huffman(1.1) than huffman(2).
This is a really clean solution.
Ashley Winters :voteyea
On 5/15/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
multi sub infix:!= (Any|Junction $a, Any|Junction $b) {
!($a == $b);
}
Then it Just Works.
Also, that's the right way to provide a working != for any object
which defines ==. We all want that, right?
Ashley Winters
} { ... }
Ashley Winters
{...};
temp $sql = q{...};
(Assuming Ctemp is made to work on lexicals, of course.)
How about 'the'? I don't want to Ipossess the variable, I just want to use it.
the $sql = q{...};
the $sth = $dbh.prepare($sql);
It could be the same as my(), but without the posessiveness (warning)
Ashley Winters
alternatives as well as the single-character ones, so
it seems preferable to me (assuming it could be optimized happily).
Ashley Winters
is a('Good Dog!')
Ashley Winters
... can you call a rule as a function?
rule foo { .* }
$x = foo(I am the very model of a modern irregular expression);
Or do I not want to know the answer to that?
Ashley Winters
$x = cos :degrees(270);
Ashley Winters
, why should scalars get all the good secondary sigils? :)
Ashley Winters
{ .does(Int) } $y.values;
}
Ashley Winters
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:12:40 +0100, Eirik Berg Hanssen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ashley Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:47:51 -0700, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Run through your mind how this would be done with a junction in $x.
Particularly focus
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:35:53 -0800, Ashley Winters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1 .. sqrt(10) - LazyList of (1..3)
1 .. sqrt(10|20) - Junction of any(1,2,3, 1,2,3,4)
LazyList does Iterator, but Junction does not. You'd have to use (1 ..
sqrt(3|6)).values to iterate through the possible values
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:29:14 -0600, Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
That, and we'd like a novice to be able to write
given $x {
when 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
when 4 | 5 | 6 {...}
}
Or just change Cwhen to accept a list of things to compare against,
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:59:04 -0800, David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:13:56AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Does
($k, $v) == pop %hash;
or
($k, $v) == %hash.pop;
make sense to anyone except me?
... the only time it's useful is
if you want to process
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:12:40 +0800, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 05:33:06PM +0100, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
my $a = (0 | 6);
say 4 $a and $a 2;
Yup. My mathematic intuition cannot suffer that:
4 X 2
to be true in any circumstances -- as it
through stringification
due to singletons. Well, on second thought, you could make $foo.meta
(or whatever) start answering to CLASS(0xDEADBEEF) style classnames.
Those are probably needed for debugging or something anyways.
Ashley Winters
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:31:47 -0700, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ashley Winters writes:
sub foo (Class $who) {
my $thing := $who$var;
my func := $whofunc; # how would I do this otherwise?
}
In current Perl 6:
sub foo (Class $who) {
my $thing := $::($who
+) -? ./
and specify the vars I want to save directly in my own scope.
Ashley Winters
] {...}
Would that be valid/mean anything?
Okay, that enough curiosity for today. :)
Thanks,
Ashley Winters
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:34:24 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though it's awfully tempting to fill in the holes in the periodic table:
($a, $b, $c) = @foo * 3;
And then just say all the corresponding unaries default to 1 (or the arity
of the left):
$bit = + $number;
()
That way, we get:
((1|2)|(34)).values ~~ (1|3,2|4) # (1,2)|(3,4) I presume
((1|2)|(34)).\values ~~ (1|2, 34)
@foo.\elems would work the same as @foo.elems, since @foo in scalar
context *is* the container object in the first place.
Comments?
Ashley Winters
? Or does something like this:
3.14159 + 1|2;
try to MMD-dispatch to:
multi sub *infix:+ (Num $foo, Str|Int $bar)
instead of (or before) threading?
Ashley Winters
':standard';
And won't we just be doing:
use CGI :standard;
anyway?
Indeed. Also, someone *ahem* will make the following work, with or
without the C.
%hash.:foo:bar:baz = 10;
Ashley Winters
constructor, just like {}.
Ashley Winters
--
When you do the community's rewrite, try to remember most of us are idiots.
On Monday 15 July 2002 07:52 am, Brent Dax wrote:
Ashley Winters:
# You've got a point. There's an easy way to say I want a sub:
#
# my $sub = - { ... }
#
# But I can't think of a similarly punctuation-intensive way
# to say I
# want a hash. (someone please step in and correct me
have my vote on %() as a hash constructor in addition to {}. :)
Ashley Winters
--
When you do the community's rewrite, try to remember most of us are idiots.
those pairs.
My argument is that %{} already represents 'HASH' context, and we don't need
%() for that as well. Instead, we need a punctuation-happy hash constructor.
Ashley Winters
--
When you do the community's rewrite, try to remember most of us are idiots.
'};# hypothetical syntax
}
{
my $x = 1;
my $y; # Might be able to BEGIN { violate_me() } instead
violate_me();
print $y;
}
Ashley Winters
--
When you do the community's rewrite, try to remember most of us are idiots.
On Sunday 07 July 2002 02:19 pm, Damian Conway wrote:
Ashley Winters asked:
It *might* possibly work to hyper the constructor:
my ($a, $b) = ^new Foo
Would prefix ^ always return 'wanted' number of repetitions? Like a
smart Cx Inf?
This does bother me about the above
On Sunday 07 July 2002 03:05 pm, Damian Conway wrote:
Ashley Winters wrote:
How about:
$_ = new Doberman for my Dog ($spot, $rover) is rw;
grin I don't think so.
In Perl 6 you'd just need:
$_ = new Doberman for $spot, $rover;
Hmm, I thought the for topic was made ro at some
On Sunday 07 July 2002 04:10 pm, Ashley Winters wrote:
given my Doberman $sis is female = .dog[0] but pregnant - $mother {
for my Doberman puppies = new Doberman x $mother.littersize
In hindsight, I probably meant
for my Doberman puppies = ^new Doberman x $mother.littersize
It's hard
On Sunday 07 July 2002 05:33 pm, Ashley Winters wrote:
my($foo, $bar) = for { $_ = new Stuff }
Err, the parser would die if I did that, never mind. Can I have each, perhaps?
*@foo = each { undef }
I shouldn't be programming on Sunday,
Ashley Winters
On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
*$min..$max
is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier you write
*$min..$max?
to get minimal matching.
I would
On Thursday 04 July 2002 11:07 am, Ashley Winters wrote:
I would expect /a*1..2?/ to mean /[a*1..2]?/ just looking at it. How
can ? ever mean non-greedy unless it follows a metachar [*+?]?
Perhaps I can respond to my own question. In /.+?/ . is an assertion, + is an
assertion
check_it_out ($idx is rw, $val is rw) {
$idx = 0;
$val = 7;
}
check_it_out($i, $a[$i]);
# really means:
check_it_out(sub is rw { $i }, sub is rw { $a[$i] });
I would guess parser tricks and tied scalars would allow it somehow, if not
out of the box.
Still creepy.
Ashley Winters
high - $x; $y {
# foo, one
# bar, too high
# baz, too high
}
Ashley Winters
}.
for instance:
pass_by_name { sub { use scope 'caller'; print $a } }
Perhaps something simpler which implies the same thing?
sub is iterator { print $a }
I'm just shooting in the dark, good luck. :)
Ashley Winters
On Monday 01 July 2002 02:30 pm, Uri Guttman wrote:
AW == Ashley Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AW Also, where does $() come in? Is statement scalarification ever
AW useful outside a string?
it is the same as scalar() in perl5. it provides scalar context if used
outside a string
On Sunday 30 June 2002 09:09 pm, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
I don't know how the grammars are going, and I'm not fit to write one
myself,
Hey, neither am I, but that hasn't stopped me from taking a stab or two,
figuring that through pain comes fitness
, e.g.:
my $pi2k = @pi_digits[2000];
In this case, I'd expect @pi_digits.length == Inf, not undef.
I'd agree with that. Perhaps you want *@lazy.length to work?
Ashley Winters
operator? condition else expr. Like
operator::or, but doesn't try to return a value.
die unless foo;
foo else die;
Ashley Winters
, you can get around that
if%foo{key}-{printHello} # - and \s{ are kinda equivalent
if%foo-{key};{printHello}
Using - like that would be evil. We should put it in the test suite now...
Ashley Winters
?
sub printRec {
given {
# $_ is now the caller's topic in this scope
}
}
Perhaps Cgiven caller.topic {} would work as well.
Ashley Winters
63 matches
Mail list logo
