On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 04:45:12PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On May 29, 2009, at 15:43 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Care to try ☃ ? That's alt-meta-hyper-doublebucky-cokebottle.
*puzzled as to why OSX Character Map thinks that's related to 雪*
Maybe they can't tell the diffence
On May 27, 2009, at 13:59 , Daniel Carrera wrote:
Wow... That's a foldl! In a functional language, that would be
called a fold. It's very popular in Haskell.
I like that Perl 6 seems to be taking steps in the direction of
functional languages. First lazy lists (0..Inf) and now a fold. :-D
On May 27, 2009, at 15:42 , Daniel Carrera wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Note that of the examples given, only Perl 6 and Common Lisp do two
things
that help immensely simplify the result:
1. reference the built-in * operator directly, without having to
wrap it in
a lambda expression;
2.
On May 27, 2009, at 18:05 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
And APL calls it |¨ (two little dots high up)
buh? Metaoperator / (+/LIST).
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats] allb...@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and
On May 28, 2009, at 06:43 , Jon Lang wrote:
What I'm wondering is how the list knows to feed two items into '[+]'.
While 'infix:+' must accept exactly two arguments, '[+]' can accept
an arbitrarily long (or short) list of arguments.
I thought that at first too, then remembered a discussion
On May 29, 2009, at 15:43 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Care to try ☃ ? That's alt-meta-hyper-doublebucky-cokebottle.
*puzzled as to why OSX Character Map thinks that's related to 雪*
--
brandon s. allbery [solaris,freebsd,perl,pugs,haskell] allb...@kf8nh.com
system administrator
On May 29, 2009, at 21:50 , Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
some Linux programs support it too. Unfortunately my e-mail program
(Pine) seems to have some trouble with unicode -- I may have to look
at alternatives after 14 years of use :(.
http://www.washington.edu/alpine/
--
brandon s. allbery
On May 29, 2009, at 22:40 , Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Ah yes, on the PC historically you hold down the ALT key and type
the code with the numpad keys.
At least when I used it, this was a decimal, rather than hex
number, and had to be preceded by
The same tradition has variations in Windows. I recall the leading zero
means ANSI code page. I thought I recall a way to give more digits and
specify Unicode, but I can't find it on Google.
--John
Timothy S. Nelson wayland-at-wayland.id.au |Perl 6| wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2009, John M.
· Quoth Larry:
˸ So let’s not make the mistake of thinking something
˸ longer is always less confusing or more official.
⋮ I already have too much problem with people thinking the
⋮ efficiency of a perl construct is related to its length.
So you’re saying the Law of Parsimony has its uses…
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:10:41PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
John Macdonald john-at-perlwolf.com |Perl 6| wrote:
However, the assumption fails if process is supposed to mean that
everyone is capable of generating Unicode in the messages that they
are writing. I don't create non-English
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John Macdonald j...@perlwolf.com wrote:
Yep, I've done that.
But comparing the difference in effort between:
- press a key
- Google for a web page that has the right character set, cut, refocus, paste
means that I don't bother for the one or two weird
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John Macdonald j...@perlwolf.com wrote:
Yep, I've done that.
But comparing the difference in effort between:
- press a key
- Google for a web page that has the right character set, cut,
Jon Lang wrote:
Agreed. Given the frequency with which « and » come up in Perl 6, I'd
love to be able to have a simple keyboard shortcut that produces these
two characters. Unfortunately, I am often stuck using a Windows
system when coding; and the easiest method that I have available to me
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Austin Hastings
austin_hasti...@yahoo.com wrote:
Agreed. Given the frequency with which « and » come up in Perl 6, I'd
love to be able to have a simple keyboard shortcut that produces these
two characters.
Windows; set keyboard to US-International. Right-alt
Back to the question of cool things about perl6- after showing some
of the extended syntax and its expressiveness, put up a slide saying
it's still Perl.
Show that much of the basics still work:
my @x=('a' .. 'z'); @x[3,4]=qw(DeeDee Ramone);
say @x.splice(2,4).join(',')
c,DeeDee,Ramone,f
the
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:47:44AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
: The questions which remain (for me, at least) is if (a) the symbols
: survive in email, and (b) if they really are the proper marks for
: Perl6.
Yes, and yes.
Me, I just defined a compose key, and compose does the right thing.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:50:36AM -0700, yary wrote:
: Back to the question of cool things about perl6- after showing some
: of the extended syntax and its expressiveness, put up a slide saying
: it's still Perl.
:
: Show that much of the basics still work:
: my @x=('a' .. 'z');
John Macdonald john-at-perlwolf.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:10:41PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
John Macdonald john-at-perlwolf.com |Perl 6| wrote:
However, the assumption fails if process is supposed to mean that
everyone is capable of generating Unicode in the
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:04:39AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 09:50:36AM -0700, yary wrote:
: Show that much of the basics still work:
: my @x=('a' .. 'z'); @x[3,4]=qw(DeeDee Ramone);
: say @x.splice(2,4).join(',')
: c,DeeDee,Ramone,f
That qw is not a good example
Buddha Buck blaisepascal-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
In response to this thread, I activated the US International
keyboard layout, and once that's done theoretically one can get
Spanish style quote mark with RightAlt+[ and RightAlt+] like so: «
and ».
The questions which remain (for me, at
Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John Macdonald j...@perlwolf.com wrote:
Yep, I've done that.
But comparing the difference in effort between:
- press a key
- Google for a web page that has the right character set, cut, refocus, paste
means
Buddha Buck blaisepascal-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM, John M. Dlugosz
2nb81l...@sneakemail.com wrote:
Buddha Buck blaisepascal-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
In response to this thread, I activated the US International
keyboard layout, and once that's
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 05:50:57PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Copy and paste it from the message into a word processor or other
program that lets you choose a font where it is not missing and make it
very large so you can see the details.
Or see http://www.marco.org/83873337 for a
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jon Lang wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John Macdonald j...@perlwolf.com wrote:
Yep, I've done that.
But comparing the difference in effort between:
- press a key
- Google for a web page that has the right character set, cut, refocus, paste
means that I don't
Ah yes, on the PC historically you hold down the ALT key and type the
code with the numpad keys.
There's some standard that says this is how to generate unicode:
1.Hold down Ctrl+Shift
2.Press U
3.Type the hexadecimal for the unicode character
4.Release Ctrl+Shift
On Fri, 29 May 2009, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Ah yes, on the PC historically you hold down the ALT key and type the code
with the numpad keys.
At least when I used it, this was a decimal, rather than hex number,
and had to be preceded by a 0 (zero).
So if anyone is still on eg.
Tim Nelson:
There's some standard that says this is how to generate unicode:
1.Hold down Ctrl+Shift
2.Press U
3.Type the hexadecimal for the unicode character
4.Release Ctrl+Shift
This works under GNOME, which also has a variant that is a little
friendlier to the fingers
Hi Damian,
This is a really good list. Mind if I copy it / modify it and post it
somewhere like my blog? One question:
* Compactness of expression + semi-infinite data structures:
@fib = 1,1...[+]# The entire Fibonacci sequence
Very impressive. That's even shorter than
Daniel Carrera wrote:
This is a really good list. Mind if I copy it / modify it and post it
somewhere like my blog?
That's fine.
One question:
* Compactness of expression + semi-infinite data structures:
�...@fib = 1,1...[+] # The entire Fibonacci sequence
Very
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
Hi Damian,
This is a really good list. Mind if I copy it / modify it and post it
somewhere like my blog? One question:
* Compactness of expression + semi-infinite data structures:
�...@fib =
Jon Lang suggested:
Start with the addition operator, '1 + 1'. Apply the reducing
metaoperator to it so that it works syntactically like a function:
'[+] 1, 1'. Instead of calling it, pass a code reference to it:
'[+]'.
No. [+] isn't the Code object for [+]; it's the Code object for
So how is this:
Any infix operator (except for non-associating operators) can be surrounded
by square brackets in term position to create a list operator
that reduces using that operation:
reconciled with this:
Any ordinary infix operator may be enclosed in square brackets with the same
Mark J. Reed asked:
So how is this:
Any infix operator (except for non-associating operators) can be surrounded
by square brackets in term position to create a list operator
that reduces using that operation:
reconciled with this:
Any ordinary infix operator may be enclosed in square
Em Qui, 2009-05-28 às 21:36 +1000, Damian Conway escreveu:
Mark J. Reed asked:
? And if [+] means infix:+, how do I refer to the Code of the
list operator [+]?
prefix:[+]
Is that really? I mean... [ ] is a meta-operator, so
[+] 1, 1, 2, 3
isn't a prefix, but a [ ] meta with + inside and
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
Em Qui, 2009-05-28 às 21:36 +1000, Damian Conway escreveu:
prefix:[+]
Is that really? I mean... [ ] is a meta-operator, so
[+] 1, 1, 2, 3
isn't a prefix, but a [ ] meta with + inside and the list as argument...
The
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:42:58PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John M. Dlugosz
2nb81l...@sneakemail.com wrote:
And APL calls it |¨ (two little dots high up)
Mr. MacDonald just said upthread that
DC == Damian Conway dam...@conway.org writes:
DC * Grammars built into the language:
DC grammar Expr::Arithetic {
DC rule Expression { Mult ** $OP= + -}
DC rule Mult { Pow ** $OP= * / % }
DC rule Pow{ Term ** $OP= ^
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:51:33AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: Yes. The full expression in raw APL for n! is:
:
: */in
:
: (where i is the Greek letter iota - iotan is Perl's 1..$n).
Only if the origin is 1. This breaks under )ORIGIN 0. cough $[ /cough
By the way, the assumption here is
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:43:58AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: So that much makes sense. But I still think the two different
: meanings of square brackets in operators are going to confuse people.
You're welcome to introduce more bracketing characters into ASCII. :P
But seriously, this is one
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 09:30:25AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:51:33AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: Yes. The full expression in raw APL for n! is:
:
: */in
:
: (where i is the Greek letter iota - iotan is Perl's 1..$n).
Only if the origin is 1. This breaks
Since when are we limited to ASCII again? :)
If this is just a question of prefix vs infix telling you what [+] is
shorthand for, OK. But it seems there's still scope for conflict
between the two meanings of the square brackets. I mean, prefix ops
can be used in reduce, too, right?
Tagentially
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:55:10PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Since when are we limited to ASCII again? :)
Well, we used some of Latin-1's bracket offerings, and people already
carp about that. :)
: If this is just a question of prefix vs infix telling you what [+] is
: shorthand for, OK. But
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 02:55:10PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Tagentially related: why doesn't simple + or + work for what we're
: currently spelling [+] (and which is more specifically spelled
: infix:+)?
Oh, and why not +? Mainly because we have lots of infix operators
containing and , but
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Larry Wall la...@wall.org wrote:
: I mean, prefix ops can be used in reduce, too, right?
I will let you ponder the meaning of reduce a bit more, and the
relationship of that to the respective arity of infixes vs prefixes.
Well, infixes are necessarily binary,
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 03:33:34PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Larry Wall la...@wall.org wrote:
: : I mean, prefix ops can be used in reduce, too, right?
:
: I will let you ponder the meaning of reduce a bit more, and the
: relationship of that to the
Daniel Ruoso asked:
prefix:[+]
Is that really? I mean... [ ] is a meta-operator,
Sure. But once you []-meta an infix operator, you get a prefix operator.
See http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html#Reduction_operators, which states:
Any infix operator (except for non-associating operators) can
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
So that much makes sense. But I still think the two different
meanings of square brackets in operators are going to confuse people.
I agree. The previously quoted passages in the synopses are confusing,
too, since it doesn't make the
John Macdonald john-at-perlwolf.com |Perl 6| wrote:
However, the assumption fails if process is supposed to mean that
everyone is capable of generating Unicode in the messages that they
are writing. I don't create non-English text often enough to have
it yet be useful to learn how. (I'd just
On Thu, 28 May 2009, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
John Macdonald john-at-perlwolf.com |Perl 6| wrote:
However, the assumption fails if process is supposed to mean that
everyone is capable of generating Unicode in the messages that they
are writing. I don't create non-English text often enough to
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:06:14PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
So that much makes sense. But I still think the two different
meanings of square brackets in operators are going to confuse people.
I agree. The previously quoted
Hi Daniel,
Sounds very interesting. Can you post slides? It'd be cool if the talk
was taped, like the Google tech talks. Will it be in English? I don't
speak Portuguese (I do speak Spanish and some German).
I'm planning to do a presentation to highlight the most impressive
aspects to Perl
Em Qua, 2009-05-27 às 18:46 +0200, Daniel Carrera escreveu:
Hi Daniel,
Hi Daniel, :P
Sounds very interesting. Can you post slides? It'd be cool if the talk
was taped, like the Google tech talks. Will it be in English? I don't
speak Portuguese (I do speak Spanish and some German).
It will
Well, you really made me realize that I'm looking for things that make
me impressed, and probably I don't get impressed that easy nowadays ;)
Well, maybe you should relax your expectations. People who haven't
been following P6 development for the last near-decade may be
impressed by stuff that
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
I know this is not the approach you had in mind, but what do you think?
Well, you really made me realize that I'm looking for things that make
me impressed, and probably I don't get impressed that easy nowadays ;)
I understand. Your experience with Perl 6 makes you harder
Mark J. Reed wrote:
I really like the factorial example on the wiki page. That really
gets across the expressiveness of P6, without being too hard to
understand despite its brevity.
sub postfix:! { [*] 1..$^n }
say 5!;
WOW!! That *IS* cool. Can you explain to me how it works? I figured out
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
sub postfix:! { [*] 1..$^n }
say 5!;
WOW!! That *IS* cool. Can you explain to me how it works? I figured out
postfix: myself, but the rest is obscure to me.
Key concepts:
1. placeholder variables. The ^
Daniel Carrera wrote:
sub postfix:! { [*] 1..$^n }
say 5!;
WOW!! That *IS* cool. Can you explain to me how it works? I figured out
postfix: myself, but the rest is obscure to me.
Here is another idea: Is it possible to declare a circumfix function
that calculates the magnitude of a vector?
Mark J. Reed wrote:
3. the reduction meta-operator [...] : [OP](@list) collects the
result of applying OP to the elements of the list in order. That is,
assuming foo() is a binary sub, [foo](1,2,3,4) =
foo(foo(foo(1,2),3),4). So [+](@list) generates a sum of the listed
values, [*]
Note that of the examples given, only Perl 6 and Common Lisp do two things
that help immensely simplify the result:
1. reference the built-in * operator directly, without having to wrap it in
a lambda expression;
2. actually name the function !
The Lisp version suffers from the lack of a
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 02:21:40PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
Wow... That's a foldl! In a functional language, that would be called a
fold.
In Haskell it may be called fold (well, foldl and foldr), but
Daniel Ruoso daniel-at-ruoso.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Please post impressive Perl 6 code snippets, we all know there are
several, and I really would like to give people some idea of why Perl 6
is so cool.
Of late, new languages have been created that are going backwards. That
is, they are
On May 27, 2009 01:52:58 pm Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
sub postfix:! { [*] 1..$^n }
say 5!;
WOW!! That *IS* cool. Can you explain to me how it works? I figured out
postfix: myself, but the rest is obscure to
Mark J. Reed wrote:
In Haskell it may be called fold (well, foldl and foldr), but the
concept has has a variety of names. Two of the more common ones are
reduce and inject;
The terms I've seen are fold and reduce. The fold term is not just
from Haskell. I've seen it elsewhere. If you had
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Note that of the examples given, only Perl 6 and Common Lisp do two things
that help immensely simplify the result:
1. reference the built-in * operator directly, without having to wrap it in
a lambda expression;
2. actually name the function !
Yes, very neat. Haskell does
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Daniel Carrera
daniel.carr...@theingots.org wrote:
The terms I've seen are fold and reduce. The fold term is not just
from Haskell. I've seen it elsewhere. If you had said inject I wouldn't
have known what you meant.
The name inject comes from Smalltalk,
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:56:42PM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Here is another idea: Is it possible to declare a circumfix function
that calculates the magnitude of a vector?
$magnitude = |@vector|;
You know how in math, two vertical bars are a standard notation for
magnitude. Oh oh
Sorry, only answered half of your question.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 07:56:42PM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Oh oh oh... is it possible to define a circumfix function for
the dot product? Something like:
$dot_product = @vector1,@vector2;
Is that possible? That would be uber-cool.
More
Larry Wall wrote:
$dot_product = @vector1,@vector2;
Is that possible? That would be uber-cool.
More likely just use
sub infix:· (@a,@b) { ... }
$dot_product = @vector1 · @vector2;
Thanks.
And for Daniel R. and other observers, how about this:
# Courtesy of Larry
sub infix:·
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Well, you really made me realize that I'm looking for things that make
me impressed, and probably I don't get impressed that easy nowadays ;)
Well, maybe you should relax your expectations. People who haven't
been following P6
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
In Haskell it may be called fold (well, foldl and foldr), but the concept
has has a variety of names. Two of the more common ones are reduce and
inject; I believe Perl6 chose reduce for consistency with the Perl5
List::Util module. Common
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 6:05 PM, John M. Dlugosz
2nb81l...@sneakemail.com wrote:
And APL calls it |¨ (two little dots high up)
Mr. MacDonald just said upthread that the APL reduce metaoperator was
spelled /. As in:
+/1 2 3
6
Here are a few of my favourite Perl 6 selling points:
* Compactness of expression:
say 'Hello, World!';
* Compactness of expression + semi-infinite data structures:
@fib = 1,1...[+]# The entire Fibonacci sequence
* Junctions make comparisons much more
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John Macdonald j...@perlwolf.com wrote:
Historically, the name reduce was used (first?) in APL, which also
provided it as a meta-operator. op/ would use op to reduce the array
on the right of the meta-operator.
It's quite possible that APL was the first use of
74 matches
Mail list logo
