On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Apr 5, 2008, at 15:07 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
What is a list comprehension? I've seen that term bantered around here.
The term comes from Haskell and Python; it's a shorthand notation for list
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a believer in generalizing where possible, modulo the principles
of KISS and YAGNI. The latter essentially means at least make it
general enough that you can extend it later without major retooling if
it turns out
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something like
path { $app_base_dir / $conf_dir / $foo_cfg . $cfg_ext }
where the operators in that scope are overloaded irrespective of
the types of the variables (be they plain scalar strings,
instances
On Jan 4, 2008 9:18 AM, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Gottman wrote:
On the other hand, this being Perl, I do believe it should be easy to
specify the concurrent case. I think that a forall keyword (and a
givenall keyword corresponding to given) would be a good idea.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:57 AM, David Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe some kind of Advisory Board would help, where people (who
might be experts in various ways) can offer informed recommendations
on what modules make a good fit for what circumstances. Ultimately,
if this is something we want,
On Nov 29, 2007 6:40 AM, James Fuller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue that XML is slightly evolved 'text' and I would like to
see my fav programming language treat it as a first class citizen
internally.
I think you are falling into a classic builtin trap. The idea is that when
you
Hi Jim,
This has become quite the flame war. There seem to be two sides of
the argument, you arguing one, everybody else arguing the other.
So to bring some perspective back into this discussion, I'd like to
ask you, what would it mean to you for there to be an XML type in
core? That is,
from
On 10/7/07, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue for disallowing the all-jammed-together case, lest we
run into longest-match arguments where foobar:baz is foobar: baz
but foo:barbaz is foo :barbaz. Yuck.
Uh, that doesn't make sense. Longest match arguments are leftmost, so
if
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I got the reply that it is similar to exponentiation of variables in math:
a ** 5 == a * a * a * a * a == a
It makes sense after it is explained and i do like the rationalization
of the range as a list-like range, instead of the comma,
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
please correct me if
i say something stupid or if this has already been discussed before.)
Another important loss if we were to go with 1..3 would be the
ability to have runtime-dependent ranges; e.g.:
/ ($ntimes) x**{$ntimes} /
On 7/1/07, Amir E. Aharoni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/07/07, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/ $ntimes := (\d+) x**{$ntimes} /
The examples of := usage in S05 seem to have notation such as this:
$ntimes := (\d+)
Yes, that is correct. I've been away from the Perl 6
On 6/25/07, Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will just voice my support for putting best-of-breed modules for very
common tasks (CGI, DBI for sure) in the core.
Of course, then you get the disadvantage that most users will see new
versions of those modules as often (or seldom, as it
On 6/11/07, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides ?? !! with out an else part is just .
No, it isn't. While behaves properly when the condition turns out
to be true, the result of the condition turning out to be false is
whatever the condition turned out to
On 5/15/07, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of Cgiven with no block
defined? I.e. is
given $foo { when 1 {...} };
equivalent to
given $foo;
when 1 {...};
Doubtful.
However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
the
On 5/1/07, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the situations in which a programmer really needs to open
something but doesn't know wether that thing is a file, a directory, or
a URL? I'm still unpersuaded this is sensible default behaviour.
Lots of times. It's an agnosticism, meaning
On 4/27/07, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Are you sure you want to guarantee left-to-right starting
: position order? If there are multiple processors available, and
: in a lazy context, it may be preferrable to not guarantee any
: order. Then, if one processor that starts at a later
On 4/17/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that unless no longer allows an else
Hmm, that's interesting. I don't _think_ I'm opposed, but maybe I am.
The main case that I can see this limiting me is where I like to put
my error conditions at the end of my code, out of the
On 4/13/07, brian d foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which then makes me think I'd want to do something a bit wacky to see
if the modtime is greater than 5:
doc ~~ M = any( 5 ..* );
Or even doc ~~ M = (5..*). Then again, (doc ~~ :M) ~~ 5..* does
the same thing, without having to have pattern
On 3/2/07, Thomas Wittek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Today I stumbled upon the Perl5 module For::Else.
It adds an else block to a foreach loop:
foreach my $item (@items) {
#process each item
} else {
#handle the empty list case
}
I find it a very nice addition as I've written code
On 2/23/07, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
' I'm still debating the boolean context myself. I _think_ it will
work; but I have a tendency to miss intricacies. You might instead
want to require someone to explicitly check for definedness or
existence instead of merely truth; or you
On 2/21/07, Thomas Wittek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway schrieb:
If the very much more readable 'zip' and 'minmax' are
to be replaced with 'ZZ' and 'MM', then I think that's a serious step
backwards in usability.
Fully agree here and I think that there are still even more places,
On 1/16/07, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Synopsys 13 mentions an is commutative trait in its discussion of
operator overloading syntax:
Binary operators may be declared as commutative:
multi sub infix:+ (Us $us, Them $them) is commutative {
myadd($us,$them) }
A few
On 1/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+Set Subsetsubset .any === X.all
+Set Superset superset.any === X.all
I think these should be reversed. Since function application is
commonly read of, this:
Set(2,3) ~~
On 1/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Author: larry
Date: Sun Jan 7 00:50:30 2007
New Revision: 13515
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
+$_$xType of Match Implied Match if
+=== = =
+Any
I propose that we remove the following two lines from the smart match
table in S03:
HashAny hash entry existence exists $_{$x}
Array Any array contains item* any($_) === $x
These are the two lines with Any on the right side. I want to remove
these so that we can
On 1/4/07, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that, while they still need privileged support in
Perl 6 the language, non-integer numbers aren't actually all that
important as far as implementing the language core goes.
Well, that's true to an extent. It's also true that we
On 12/31/06, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For example, we could have:
div - integer division
mod - integer modulus
/ - number division
% - number modulus
Or alternately:
idiv - integer division
imod - integer modulus
ndiv - number division
nmod - number
When do we do integer/rational math and when do we do floating point math?
That is, is 1 different from 1.0? Should 10**500 be infinity or a 1
with 500 zeroes after it? Should 10**10**6 run out of memory? Should
say (1/3)**500 print a bunch of digits to the screen or print 0?
These are just
On 12/18/06, Blair Sutton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree entirely that not all objects need this capability but some
certainly do. That is, the capability to execute code once every
reference of an object has been removed. Could you point to, or give an
example of the Perl 6 way for doing
In spite of Larry's comments, I will continue to entertain this idea
until it is solid to myself that I would be comfortable accepting it.
On 12/13/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. The question is whether you think of a role as a set of
methods (intension set) or as a set of
On 12/12/06, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
In any case, one should never add
anything while going from specific to general.
The crux of my example is that one indeed adds methods
in the supertype. The subtype receives a standard
implementation. This pattern is
On 12/13/06, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Things work a little differently for required methods. When a
superrole requires a method be implemented, we (the language
designers) have a choise to make: it is illegal if the superrole
requires a method that the subroles don't implement
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
This reminds me of the endless student proofs that trisect
On 9/27/06, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW: for the above, it would be nice to be able to say:
when m:i/^perl$/ {...}
without all the noise. That is, it would be nice to have something like:
when 'perl':i {...}
Well, there are a few ways to do that:
given lc
On 9/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
Slaughter of special [,], now is just listop form of [...]
To support |func() syntax, | is the new * (desigilized)
Woohoo! I was about to complain about this whole capture sigil
nonsense, but I'm guessing somebody else already did.
On 9/20/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Conjecture: We need a corresponding sigil to request captureness.
As with @ and %, you can store a capture in a $ to hide it, but we
don't have the ability to have capture variables that know how to
behave like captures without fakey syntactic
I don't follow your examples. What is the logic behind them?
On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Examples:
Arguments (1 2) to signatures 1. (@a?) and 2. (@a) calls 2
For example, I would expect this one to be ambiguous, because the 1.
(@a?) sub introduces two different
On 8/31/06, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, though, How would you specify :g? It doesn't make a lot of sense
on rx// -- just like you can't use it with qr// in Perl 5.
It is a good point that it doesn't belong on the regex. Perhaps:
$foo.subst(/bar/, baz, :g)
That seems to work,
On 8/25/06, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why not? Is it any weirder than simply changing that functionality
beyond recognition?
You can always fake removing functionality even if the language
doesn't actually support it.
Yes, yes, of course. That is not the issue. We are trying to
On 8/25/06, Daniel Hulme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's because you're used to one way of thinking about class
inheritance: that the subclass can do everything that the superclass can
do, and more. In this scheme, you might have a Square class, with a
field representing its corner and another
On 8/25/06, Michael Snoyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked this same question on perl6-users, but no one really seemed to have
a definitive answer, so please forgive me for reasking.
I was wondering how named arguments would work when parameters of different
types had the same name, ie sub
On 8/23/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, that should work eventually, given that hypers are supposed to stop
after the longest *finite* sequence.
Shudder xx *
What the hell does that mean!?
Let me posit this:
@a = 0..42;
@b = list_of_twin_primes();
(@a = @b).length;
Is
On 8/24/06, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found your rant a bit long on vehemence and short on coherence,
Luke, but if I understand you correctly, your complaint is that this
is finite:
@finite_list = @infinite_list
while, according to S03, this is long:
@short_list = @long_list
On 8/24/06, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/06, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, actually Array would be a subtype of Array::Const, not t'other
way round.
Why? That makes no sense to me. An Array isn't a variety of
constant Array; a constant Array is a variety
On 8/23/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you really want:
if $a ~~ Array {
and that also matches Array::Const, assuming it's derived from Array.
Well, actually Array would be a subtype of Array::Const, not t'other
way round. That is a little bit disconcerting, because when you
On 8/22/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
print qq:from/FOO/;
On a somewhat related, somewhat unrelated note, I am a little bit
worried about the false duality of :to and :from.
Luke
On 8/20/06, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:50:31AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
#{
if $baz {
$foo.bar
}
}
To uncomment, remove the # before the {.
This is exactly the type of construct that I had in mind. A couple of
questions.
On 8/20/06, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I think you are being too picky.
[snip snarky sarcastic rant]
Hmm, perhaps I'm feeling edgy. Or maybe some of the comments reminded
me of those rediculously long, whiny threads. Anyway, that was
un-called-for.
Luke
On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
this perl5ish:
while (1) {
$num = rand;
print $num;
last if $num 0.9;
print ,; # NEXT
}
print \n;
On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't actually need a macro in that case:
if 0 { q
...
}
Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
code-commenting construct where you just change the 0 to a 1. After
all, we already have #{}.
On 8/16/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Is the output 01234 or 12345?
I'd say 01234 on the theory that the 3-arg loop is really saying:
$n = 0;
while $n 5 {
NEXT { ++$n }
NEXT { print $n }
}
and also on the theory that block exiting blocks always run in
What do these do?
for 1,2 {
my $code = {
my $x;
BEGIN { $x = 42 }
$x;
};
say $code();
}
for 1,2 {
my $code = {
state $x;
BEGIN { $x = 42 } # mind you, not FIRST
$x++;
};
say $code();
say $code();
}
On 8/10/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it's a design smell. The point of core is to huffman code common
things, so something in core with _ should normally either be shorter
or out of the core.
I don't think I agree. I've been programming in Ruby, and I
appreciate all the nice
On 8/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some object types can behave as value types. Every object can produce
a safe key identifier (CSKID for short) that uniquely identifies the
-object for hashing and other value-base comparisons. Normal objects
+object for hashing and other
On 8/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The way it could work is a bit like this:
class Mail::TheOneTrueWay {
does Mail::SomeAPI is weak {
method header; # this method has different semantics for
# each role. It
On 8/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:12:11 +0100, Daniel Hulme wrote:
I may be in a little world of my own here, but isn't this what 'as' is
supposed to do?
foo($x as Moose);
as is a method invocation not a type annotation... It's related, but
not the
On 8/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally prefer delegates for almost any design dillema, but
most CPAN modules aren't that way.
Well, what way are they? How else has this problem been solved?
snipped stuff about adaptors
Yes, this is necessary for anything heavyweight
On 8/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's much more relevant for:
fun( $x.foo :: Bar );
in order to annotate the return type for a call's context even if
the 'fun' function's signature accepts Any.
Touche, this is independent of type inference.
I'm not up-to-date on
On 8/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My original idea was that this is again an ambiguity error - without
the helper function stating which role it's using it cannot dispatch
the header method at all, since it's in a role-conflicted state.
The difference, though, is that this
On 4/28/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about Bag, a set container? Alternately what we really want is
just a Hash where the type of the value is defined as 1, so it need
not be stored at all. Then most of the syntax for it just falls out
of Hash syntax, unless you like writing $x
On 3/27/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The p5-to-p6 translator will turn
local $x;
into
temp undefine $x;
Are you sure that that's not:
undefine temp $x;
It seems to me that the other way would undefine $x and then temporize it.
Luke
On 4/4/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, if junctions really are sets of sets, then maybe it's
a mistake to autocoerce junctions to sets by swiping their internal set
of values. Arguably any(1,2,3) should coerce not to
(1,2,3)
but to
(
(1),
On 4/4/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, then; what would be the specification for a _single_ set that
contains everything that doesn't intersect with a corresponding all()
Junction (the sort of thing that I'd use if I wanted to find the
largest subset of A that doesn't intersect
On 4/3/06, Amos Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is perl 6, right?
my %hash; $hash{foo}{bar} - shouldn't it be %hash{foo}{bar}?
%hashfoobar even.
Luke
On 2/24/06, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. One of the available TRAITS is Creturns RETTYPE. So you can always
specify a postfix return type, even without a declarator:
sub data() returns Str {...}
The declarator is only needed if you want to prefix your return type
On 2/13/06, Yiyi Hu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For perl 6,
Array and Scalar are in different namespace.
So,
class A { has $.a; has @.a };
what will A.new.a return by default?
That's a compile time error. Both has declarations generate a
method a, so it is a method conflict.
Luke
On 2/13/06, Amos Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there's a typo in synopsis 5, Indirectly quantified subpattern
captures:
[ (\w+) \: (\w+ \h+)* \n ]**{2...}
I have a feeling the \h should be *, not +.
It looks like you're right. Thanks, fixed.
Luke
On 2/13/06, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer skribis 2006-02-13 9:36 (+):
That's a compile time error. Both has declarations generate a
method a, so it is a method conflict.
Doesn't normally double declaration end in the later masking/overriding
the earlier declaration
On 2/7/06, Robin Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any undef undefinedmatch if !defined $a
Any Regex pattern matchmatch if $a =~ /$b/
Code() Code()results are equalmatch if $a-() eq $b-()
Any Code()simple closure
On 2/6/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is mostly motivated by linguistics rather than computer science,
insofar as types/classes/roles in natural language are normally
represented by generic objects rather than meta objects. When I
ask in English:
Can a dog bark?
that's
On 2/3/06, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sub factorial(Int $x) {
temp state Int $result = 1;
$result *= $x;
factorial $x-1 if $x 2;
return $result if want;
}
say factorial 6;
That's precisely what env variables are for. The right way:
sub
On 1/29/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aside from that they are normal perl 6 subroutines, that simply get
invoked during compile time instead of during runtime.
With one extra feature. By default (my preference) or with a trait,
parameters can get passed in as ASTs instead of real
On 1/19/06, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OOP is all about black-box abstraction. To that end, three items have
been identified as being mostly necessary to achieve that:
1) Polymorphism - aka Liskov substitutability
2) Inheritance - aka specialization
3) Encapsulation
P5
On 1/19/06, Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose I have code that looks like this:
my ($x, $y, $z) = (1, 2, 3);
say sorted backward if ++$x ++$y ++$z;
Will $z be incremented even though the chained comparison is known to be
false after ++$x and ++$y
On 1/17/06, Audrey Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I personally like having 0/0 be NaN and 1/0 be Inf (as in JavaScript),
but all of Python/Perl/Ruby/Scheme/OCaml throws exceptions for them...
I believe we've been through this before. We go with a standard,
probably IEEE, horridly mathematically
On 1/13/06, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to work out if there's a clever perl6 way to write this using
pattern matching:
for @*ARGV - -f, $filename {
$filename .= absolute_filename;
}
There is, but it's a different kind of pattern matching:
if @*ARGV ~~ / ,
In perl 5:
my @a = (1,2,3);
delete $a[1];
print exists $a[1];
This is false, whereas $a[0] and $a[2] do exist. This is creepy. Not
only is it creepy, it raises a whole bunch of questions with
nontrivial answers:
* does [EMAIL PROTECTED] include nonexistent elements?
* does
On 1/13/06, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What happens if I simply abandon the attempt at anonymous MMD and use a
named multi-sub, instead:
{
my multi sub process_arg(-f, Str $f is rw) {
$f .= absolute_filename
}
my multi sub process_arg(--quux, Str arg1, Str arg2) {
On 1/12/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that Dave has a point about a Range[Real] being an infinite
set: According to DWIM, if I see 4.5..5.7, I don't think of 4.5,
5.5; I think of numbers greater than or equal to 4.5 but less than
or equal to 5.7. Likewise, 4.5^..^5.3
On 1/9/06, Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sub use_ok($module) {
eval package {caller.package}; require etc.;
}
I'd like to see a nice interface to scopes in general. That is, we
would have a scope object which would provide access to all the
lexical scopes and the package
On 1/4/06, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
The point was that you should know when you're passing a named
argument, always. Objects that behave specially when passed to a
function prevent the ability to abstract uniformly using functions.[1]
...
[1] This is one
On 1/4/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I'm almost sure that I agree with him. It's too bad, because
except for that little detail, fmap was looking pretty darn nice for
junctions.
Not really. If I read the fmap proposal correctly,
You didn't :-)
if any($x, $y, $z)
On 1/2/06, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I have no idea for this nice syntax, yet. Perhaps something like
my junc = any(1,2,3);
my $val = 1;
if junc( infix:==, $val ) {...}
which is arguably clumsy.
I don't think anyone would waste his time arguing that. :-)
The part that
I propose that we change $! (formerly global) and $/ (formerly
implicitly lexical) to being env variables. Here is the IRC
conversation where Audrey convinced me:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/perl6?date=2006-01-01,Sunsel=1213#l1893
Let me explain env variables, because my
Recursive descent is slow, and it produces bad error messages unless
you are very careful with your commit calls, but it is very flexible
and (locally) predictable. Predictive parsing is faster and produces
fantastic error messages, and is fairly flexible. Bottom up parsing
is very flexible, but
On 12/26/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:09:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
x ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* ]* /
As I understand things, $/[0][0] would be x.
Hmm, that seems wrong. Consider:
xxxyxxyxy ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* (y) ]* /
I argue
On 12/26/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I argue that by the structure of that rule, you should be able to tell
which xs go with which y.
...
Is there a counterargument that I'm not seeing?
I'd say that if you want a structured rule, it should be written
that way, as in
On 12/25/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
foo(
named_arg := $value,
other_arg := $value,
);
I'll point out that Joe's argument is completely moot, because you're
not using $s on the named arguments. As a matter of fact, we could
double up the := symbol as both
What sort of match object should this return, supposing that it didn't
infinite loop:
x ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* ]* /
Should $/[0][0] be x, or should $/[0][0][0] be x? If it's the
latter, then when do new top-level elements get added?
/
[
[
{ say +$/[0][] } # is this
Does .clone do deep or shallow copying of objects?
I'm going to argue for shallow. I know there's a obvious tendency to
say that we should go with deep, because it's useful sometimes.
However, I think that would be ignoring the amazing prevelance of the
shallow copy idioms in perl 5:
[
On 12/23/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-12-23 16:16 (+):
However, I think that would be ignoring the amazing prevelance of the
shallow copy idioms in perl 5:
[ @array ]
{ %hash }
It's a great idiom. Not much typing, easy on the eyes and easy
On 12/23/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO Everybody,
here's a an idea from me about makeing range object a bit like
junctions. That is a range object has a $.min and $.max and the
following comparison behaviour:
str num
lt strictly inside -+
gt strictly outside
On 12/22/05, Michele Dondi
Please do not ask me what I have in mind, for I'm
not really sure.
Well, @Larry has been researching attribute grammars for a month or
two now, which are an efficient (programmer-wise, not necessarily
processor-wise) method for specifying computations over trees. The
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
However, what do we do about:
while $x-- some_condition($x) {}
Here, while is being passed a hash, not a do-nothing code. Should we
force people to
On 12/17/05, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An undefined value is NOT the same as zero or an empty string
respectively; the latter two are very specific and defined values,
just like 7 or 'foo'.
I definitely agree with you in principle. This is something that has
been bugging me, too.
On 12/15/05, Brad Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why does the longest input sequence win?
Is it for some consistency that that I'm not seeing? Some exceedingly
common use case? The rule seems unnecessarily restrictive.
Hmm. Good point. You see, the longest token wins because that's an
On 12/15/05, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose, perhaps redundantly, that Perl 6 include a complete set of
native
Okay, I'm with you here. Just please stop saying native and core.
Everyone.
rant
Remember, syntax in Perl 6 can be stuffed in a library like anything
else. You
On 12/15/05, Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What should this mean?
package Foo;
sub Bar::baz is export { ... }
The problem is in how callers request this export.
use Foo baz;
Hmm. My gut reaction is that that is the correct way to request that export.
Looks weird,
On 12/6/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 07:54 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
I wonder if there is a macroey thing that we can do here. That is,
could we make:
ok(1);
is(1, 1);
like(foo, /foo/);
Into:
ok(1);
ok(1 == 1);
ok
On 12/6/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still leaves the problem of what to do with fail() and is() in
the compiler suite.
Here's a handwavey crack at what I was talking about:
Ack. Accidentally sent the half written message. Let's try again:
my $comparators = set == eq
1 - 100 of 974 matches
Mail list logo
