RE: Placeholders: since DBIv1 already supports both forms of
PH's, I see no reason to deprecate or abandon either form.
Furthermore, to my knowledge, none of (ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET)
has abandonded or deprecated the ? form, so I don't see
the need for DBI to.
RE: LOBs and SQL Parse Trees: having
How do we intend to manipulate raw binary in Perl6? Perl5's use
bytes; pragma is rather poor (forcing all strings to be raw in its
scope or requiring do {use bytes; ...} type tricks to deal with them)
and now Perl6 has real typing perhaps it would be more usefull to have
a bytestring type (or and
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 03:58:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
It should take a little more effort to mess with the minds of
unsuspecting modules, so maybe the standard syntax is cloned out of
*STANDARD_PERL_6 or some such scary package name. It's the default for
starting all require-like Perl 6
BTW: If you need a list of DBD's meeting said requirement, let me know,
I just pulled one down.
Sure, send it over.
[ ] DBD-ADO-2.94.tar.gz 31-Jan-2005 02:4041k GZIP compressed docume
[ ] DBD-ASAny-1.13.tar.gz 31-Oct-2003 15:0030k GZIP compressed docume
[ ]
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-11 18:29 (-0700):
is that we simply outlaw .foo notation at *compile* time in those
scopes where we know (at compile time) that $_ and $?SELF diverge.
In such a scope you *must* specify $_ or $?SELF (or equivalent).
What?
That makes having a default at
I feel a me too post is in order.
I've written code that is 2-3 levels of nested given/when in a
method of an object that wasn't the topic.
I did not feel confused at all, juggling .foo and ./foo, which are
visually distinct, and different to type. They convey a big
difference of meaning, even
On 7/12/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Disallowing .method here means a huge step back in time. Back to
$_.method or $object.method.
[snip]
I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
viable
Hi,
what do use and require evaluate to?
S06 suggests it's probably some kind of Module object:
The result of a use statement is a (compile-time) object that also has
an .assuming method, allowing the user to bind parameters in all the
module's subroutines/methods/etc.
On 2005-07-11 23:46, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. Work out the Manhattan distance from the argument list to each
variant's parameter list.
OK, sorry if I missed this in an earlier discussion. For purposes of
calculating this Manhattan distance, I gather that we're
Mark Reed wrote:
And one more dumb question: why is it that the L[1] metric is superior to
the L[2] metric for this purpose?
I am also interested in the rational behind the approach to manage MMD
my means of a metric instead of a partial order on the types.
Metric is a geometric concept which
Damian Conway wrote:
This is a much less dwimmy solution than Yuval's or Luke's, but it has the
advantage that those eight steps reduce to eight words:
Unique least-inherited most-specialized match, or default
Do I read this correctly as dispatching partly in the class hierarchy
and
Autrijus Tang wrote:
The compiler, in turn inspect whether there's an bound $_ in scope
with $?SELF set. It is not trivial, because this should work:
sub baz (c) { c() }
method foo { baz { .bar } } # $_ is free in inner closure
But this needs to fail:
sub baz (c) { c(1) }
On 2005-07-12 12:22, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am also interested in the rationale behind the approach to manage MMD
my means of a metric instead of a partial order on the types.
Metric is a geometric concept which in my eyes doesn't fit type
theory.
The geometric
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:15:30PM +, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
In Perl 5, %INC maps the partial path names of the modules
loaded to their absolute ones. What should the keys and values
of %*INC be in Perl 6?
Conceptually, the Perl 5 %INC maps from what to which. It also imposes
a
Mark Reed wrote:
On 2005-07-12 12:22, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am also interested in the rationale behind the approach to manage MMD
my means of a metric instead of a partial order on the types.
Metric is a geometric concept which in my eyes doesn't fit type
theory.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:13:22PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
: Actually it's a pitty, that the multi method call syntax isn't as
: rich as the single method call syntax where we have .?method, .+method
: and .*method. Something like (Snoopy, Mr_PotatoHead, HopeDiamond).*foo
: doesn't
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:15:30PM +, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: what do use and require evaluate to?
:
: S06 suggests it's probably some kind of Module object:
: The result of a use statement is a (compile-time) object that also has
: an .assuming method,
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:53:49AM -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
: How do we intend to manipulate raw binary in Perl6? Perl5's use
: bytes; pragma is rather poor (forcing all strings to be raw in its
: scope or requiring do {use bytes; ...} type tricks to deal with them)
: and
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:27:48PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 03:58:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: It should take a little more effort to mess with the minds of
: unsuspecting modules, so maybe the standard syntax is cloned out of
: *STANDARD_PERL_6 or some such
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 06:37:58PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: * A closure form of `but` is desugared into a `do given` block that
: eliminates the need of returning $_ explicitly. So those two forms
: are equivalent:
:
: my $foo = Cls.new but {
: .attr = 1;
: };
:
:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 13:55:56 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On the other hand, if the basic Str type is unwilling to take on the
burden of being parameterized, we could generate all our funny string
types by mapping a string name to an array declaration.
my Str $foo is Array of byte;
Dean Arnold wrote:
RE: LOBs and SQL Parse Trees: having recently implemented
LOB support for a JDBC driver (and soon for a DBD), I can assure
you that SQL parse trees are unneeded to support them. For databases
Great!
Perhaps you can shed some light on how to do it for this, then.
SQL
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:36:23PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: : The obvious thought is to have yet
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 00:46:49 +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the string-is-a-list mindset
is that Parsec can parse any list of crap into any structured crap.
It's only affinity towards real strings and characters is the
builtin library of useful rules.
Yuval Kogman wrote:
By the way, a nice use case for using the rules engine could be
parsing a stream of SAX events into a structure... XML::Simple in
perl6 could be really as simple as it sounds =)
Can anyone see this being retrofitted on top of current rules
semantics? How does PGE relate to
Perl 6 Summary for 2005-07-05 through 2005-07-12
All~
Welcome to another summary from the frog house. A house so green it can
be seen from outerspace (according to google earth).
Perl 6 Compiler
Building Pugs Workaround
Sam Vilain posted a useful work around to the error
Matt Fowles summarized:
Method Call on Invocant
Now ./method is gone, and .method only works when $_ =:= $?SELF .
Important qualification:
Within a method or submethod, C.method only works when C$_ =:= $?SELF.
C.method is perfectly legal on *any*
27 matches
Mail list logo
