Comma in (sub) traits?

for the list. It's not that important, just a thought. Cheers, wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Comma in (sub) traits?

: sub foo ( 0 ){ ... } sub foo ( $bar ) { ... } So I'm very confused about my opinion on the issue of pattern matching.. Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

List constructors

. :) -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: New S29 draft up

. Juerd -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Pugs Bug

trimming. (Specific proposals to p6l please.)) Shouldn't these be just methods? Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Pugs Bug

, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence. Maybe there's a pragma that lets you control how much coercion happens. use coercion :oppressively; # They're adverbs, after all! Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Blocks, continuations and eval()

on coderefs or blocks. Is there a difference between the two? I always hated this about Ruby; there seems to be no practical value to the separation. Also, are blocks/coderefs/scopes continuations? Should .eval be a method in Continuation? Thanks, -- wolverian signature.asc Description

Re: Blocks, continuations and eval()

, coderefs and scopes are. I'm sorry if I was unclear. I probably should have spent more time writing the post. :) --Dks -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocks, continuations and eval()

are thinking, I'm thinking the answer to your question is yes. Yes. I want to know how Perl 6 exposes continuations, and how to get one for, say, the current lexical scope, and if it has a method on it that lets me evaluate code in that context (or some other way to do that). -Melvin -- wolverian

Re: Context of hash slices; quotation adverbs

/sub would be simply its name without the parens. I hope I never have to design my own language. I would be schizophrenic before the day ends. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocks, continuations and eval()

method of capturing the calling continuation. Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Code classes

is very special, after all, so you can't really be consistent with it. I prefer it be the topic, in any case. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: single element lists

], which is probably undefined, so it dies. That could be detected at compile time. (my $foo = 1)[0] means $foo[0], which would die at runtime, unless there's type inference going on. In any case, I don't see a List in ()[] without a list-creating expression in the (). -Scott -- wolverian

Re: ^method ?

. :) In Perl 6, foo is a reference to the function foo, and never a call. That makes it symmetric with the other $.foo notations. Matt -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Perl development server

you get the chance. I'd like a login, username wolverian. Thanks! Please let me know which software you want installed. If it's in Debian and doesn't conflict with other software, you can have it (but no X or openoffice, or the like). If it's not in Debian, you'll have to compile it yourself

Re: Perl development server

in Finnish. :) Anyway, I do think the name should be English, to be as accessible as possible. 'Feather' is nice, and reminds me of Pugs's origins. On the other hand, maybe 'falcon' (as terribly cliched as it is) is more accurate of Pugs nowadays. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital

(OT) Re: Perl development server

of words that have degenerated ages ago in other languages.) -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Perl development server

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote: But I like the newly suggested feather better, as it can relate to pugs AND parrot. Feather is best one thus far, I think. I like carrot too; it's more playful. I equate Pugs with fun a lot. -- wolverian signature.asc Description

Re: (1,(2,3),4)[2]

strange like that.) -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: (1,(2,3),4)[2]

that correctly! :). = is still fine for basic assignment and everyone will understand it immediately. I thought the op is visually so obvious it wouldn't need any explanation, even for newbies. Too bad what I _think_ is often not what actually _is_. -- wolverian signature.asc Description

Re: Transparent / Opaque references

doesn't make sense to me. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: File.seek() interface

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:18:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote: I'm a pretty high level guy, so I don't know about the performance implications of that. Maybe we want to keep seek() low level, anyway. Sorry about replying to myself, but I want to ask a further question on this. Would it be possible

Re: File.seek() interface

tempted to make it a generic infix .new. (args)`Class; It's almost as confusing as SML! -- wolverian pgpjlZIJ8VhS2.pgp Description: PGP signature

.chars, .bytes, etc.

- if there should be an .elems method, leave it at returning an Int at all times. @foo.elems returning the elements in @foo makes no sense. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Stringification, numification, and booleanification of pairs

On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote: Hackers on this list, what do you think? I think separating the two is extremely confusing. I do not see any uses for it, but maybe I am not thinking hard enough. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Re(vised): Proposal to make class method non-inheritable

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 08:25:15AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: [snip] Of course, there's never been any controversy here about what to call self, oh no... :-) IMHO just call it self (by default) and be done with it. :) -- wolverian, contributing to the general disagreement