Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>>>Multimethods don't belong to classes; they mediate interactions
>>>*between* classes.
>> Will the 'is multi' actually be necessary? Just curious.
>
> That's still b
"Mr. Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 11:00 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
>> >> ...the absence of the commas is what's special. If they were normal
>> >> function
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brent Dax asked:
>
>> So
>> @a ~> grep { ... } ~> @b
>> Is the same as
>> @b = grep { ... } @a
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>> As in...
>> class Array {
>> ...
>> method grep (Array $ary: Code $code) returns Array {
>>
"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mr. Nobody:
> # I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax,
> # and how many only say they do because it's Damian Conway who
> # proposed it. And map/grep aren't "specialized syntax", you
>
> IIRC Damian also supports Unicode operators (
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes:
>> Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very,
>> very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
>
> We've done that.
Yeah, but not with quite so many 'very's. I think you'll find tha
"Buddha Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mr. Nobody wrote:
>
>> If you and Damian think you'll get me to leave p6l this easily,
>> forget it.
>> I've seen far worse flames than that.
>
> While you were the person that Damian lost his sense of humor at,
> Piers didn't identify you in this part o
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Siracusa asked:
>
>> Has there been any discussion of how to create code in Perl 6 that's there
>> under some conditions, but not there under others? I'm thinking of the
>> spiritual equivalent of #ifdef, only Perlish.
>> In Perl 5, there were many
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>> Which, in turn, implies that the lines:
>>my Foo $a; # (1)
>>my $a is Foo; # (2)
>>my Foo $a is Foo; # (3)
>> are all subtly different. (2) and (3) (auto)instantiate a Foo, but
>> (1) does not.
>
> Corr
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 03:24 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Michael Lazzaro asked:
>>>class FileBasedHash is Hash { ...stuff... };
>>>my %data is FileBasedHash('/tmp/foo.txt');
>> Yes.
>
>>>my $path = '/tmp/foo.txt';
>>>my %data
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 1:10 PM + 1/6/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type,
>>> but that doesn't make an array an
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> attriel wrote:
>
>> AssignmentOK?Because...
>> ========
>> my Basket $c = $a no $c's type: Basket (of Object)
>>
Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan-04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> Damian Conway wrote:
>>
>> >Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >
>> >>Acknowledgements
>> >
>> >But, of course, modesty forebade him from thanking the tireless P
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2003-01-07 at 11:31:13, Mr. Nobody wrote:
>> .length is unneeded, since an array gives its length in numeric context, so
>> you can just say +@a.
> Unneeded, but harmless.
>
>> grep shouldn't be an array method either, it should be
>> like the perl5
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> An object is a data type, as much as an array or hash is a data type,
> but that doesn't make an array an object. [insert obligatory "all men
> are Socratese" quote here)
I really hope you're wrong here Dan. At least in that particular
case. Being able to
Paul Kienzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>>* Thanks to everyone who has given me feedback as a result of these
>>summaries. It's really good to know that people finding these things
>>useful.
>>
> Me too.
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021229
This is not your normal summary. It's been Christmas, things have been
quiet, I've been concentrating on mince pies, roast goose and all that
other good stuff. Normal service will be resumed next week.
Acknowledgements
* Larry Wall
he language list this
week) continued from last week. Dan pointed out that using long lived
object IDs (ie. unique for all time) would be expensive, and reckoned
that the basic approach should be fast and good enough for the common
case. Piers Cawley wondered if doing object 'identi
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 09:31:41AM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > It seems like Perl6 is moving farther and farther away from Perl5's
>> > (almost) typelessness.
&g
makeashorterlink.com/?D185210D2 -- I'm not sure how this
relates to the subject at hand, but it's a good Larry moment.
Everything is an Object
Michael Schwern reminded everyone that, in Perl 6, everything is an
object and pointed out some of the consequences this has for l
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 03:58:54PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> > From: Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > My understanding was that in Perl6, you could use pretty much anything
>> > for a hashkey--string, number, object, whatever, and that it did not
>>
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 08:26:25PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PR
"Dave Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>> I found myself mulling over:
>>
>> $obj.is($other_obj);
>>
>> Which seems to work reasonably well, and I'd be rather surprised
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Mind you (purely devil's advocate), I'm not entirely sure the R-to-L
>> > syntax tr
Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley writes:
>> I found myself mulling over:
>>
>> $obj.is($other_obj);
>>
>> Which seems to work reasonably well, and I'd be rather surprised if it
>> clashed with anything with different
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 10:59 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>map { .[0] }
>>sort { $^a[1] cmp $^b[1] }
>>map { $_ => some_transform($_) }
>>grep /.../, @array
>>
>> happily stay
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 09:32:02AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>>
>> $obj.ID;
>> $obj.IDENTITY;
>
> FWIW, I favor the latter.
I found myself mulling over:
$obj.is($other_obj);
Which seems to work reasonably well, and I'd be rather sur
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Both of your proposed options are, frankly, vile. The
> > multimethod/generic function approach has the advantage of putting
> > the 'burden'
t,
> >> satisfy everyone.
>
> On Friday, December 13, 2002, at 03:07 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > What's wrong with:
> >
> > class Array {
> > method grep ( &block ) {
>
> > }
> >
> > sub grep (Object $obj,
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 06:56 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> >> Wel... yes and no. You can make the same argument for operators
> >> upon scalars, for example, since 'scalar' is arguably no m
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:21:35 -0500
>> From: John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>>
>> On 12/11/02 6:16
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Whipp) writes:
>> There is a difference between verbs and noun. Sometimes you don't want
>> to associate a verb with an object: you want to associate it with the
>> subject:
>
> Verbs are almost always associated with their subject
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday, December 11, 2002, at 10:36 AM, John Siracusa wrote:
>> Maybe "AS_STRING" and "AS_STRING_DEBUG"? Too long? "DEBUG_STRING"?
>> Are we married to the "AS_*" thing?
>
> Not really -- whatever works. We also had .debug, .identity, and .id
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deborah Ariel Pickett) writes:
>> About this point was when my brain when "a ha!". But I'm not yet
>> convinced that generating all possible parses is (a) of sane time
>> complexity, and (b) a little *too* DWIM for its own good.
>
> As
Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Damian Conway wrote:
>> For that reason, even if we can solve this puzzle, it might be far kinder
>> just to enforce parens.
>
> I might be weird, but when I use parens to clarify code in Perl, I
> like to use the Lisp convention:
>
>(method $object args)
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, December 6, 2002, at 01:28 AM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>>> Array(0x1245AB)
>>>
>>> Personally, I like this format. It's succinct, informative, and tells
>>> you enough to do identity testing.
>>
>> I like it too, but I thought everyone el
ffered *his* vision
of what the difference between the lists should be. In another
subthread, Garrett Goebel offered his vision too (obviously a 'vision'
week).
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O1D8225A2
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C2E8115A2 -- Larry's vision
h
It's coming up on six months since the last Apocalypse, and 3 months
since the Perl 6 Mini conference. Do we have any indication as to when
we can expect the next one?
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewr
"next" to be
"bork" (standing for "Break OR Kontinue" or "Brain On Raw Krack", you
decide) just so he could write
my $cheffy = $recipe.iterator;
$cheffy.bork.bork.bork;
Damian appeared to take him seriously (well, not about the bork thing
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Be kind to Piers.
Ah... Yes do. I need all the kindness I can get.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jane Austen?
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>>> C is compile-time.
>> So, how would one create a class which inherits from some other
>> class
>> when you don't know what said other class is until runtime?
>
> Use Perl5-
n't be able to prototype things like "print" (and if you
can't get a prototype for something then you can't fully override it).
Damian added that it's also what Perl 5 does (except Perl 5 does it
without having the decency to declare anything)
http://
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > --- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I wonder what would happen if yo
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> [Speculations elided]
>
>> Which is somewhat dependent on being able to do C.
>
> Which you can't do, since C is compile-time.
So, how would one create a class which inherits from some other
I wonder what would happen if you had a junction of
continuations. Producing something practical is left as an exercise
for the interested reader.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
-- Jan
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Luke Palmer asked:
>
>> When junctions collapse,
>
> Sigh, not another one of those dreadful reality TV shows:
>
> When animals attack
> When drivers collide
> When junctions collapse
>
> Next we'll get:
>
> When mailing lists exp
' option which involves seabirds and a pathological inability
to spell `guillemet'.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1E222F62
FMTWYENTK about ":="
Bravely declining to expand the acronym in his subject, arcardi posted a
summary of his current understanding of the behaviour of
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ I notice that Piers has just said about the same as me in one
sentence. ]
Ah, but I get lots of practice boiling stuff down when I'm writing the
summaries. Though the current one is still giving me headaches -- I'm
about halfway through perl6-langua
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
>> I still prefer "cached", which sounds less lingo-ish than "memoized"
>> but reads
>> better than "same" ("Same as what?").
>
> Insert obligatory reference to Eiffel here, which IIR u
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
>> class is Num {
>> method FETCH { $n * $n } }.new }
>> Yes? No?
>
> Not quite.
>
>
> > sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
> > class is Num {
>
Robert Spier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Ah... that would explain why I haven't seen it then. Looks like
>>someone broke perl6-all.
>
> No, it was just "not configured".
>
> Future messages to perl6-documentation should end up on perl6-all.
Good oh.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally ac
"Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8 Nov 2002 at 9:12, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 10:45 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > Those of us with subs to perl6-all will get this anyway, right?
>>
>>
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 12:12:53PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with C?
>>
>> C ain't bad either, but it won't appeal to
>> non-mathematicians---even certain kinds of mathematicians.
>> Mathematica thinks a "pure" function is what we think
Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ask was fast:
>
>> Subscribe by sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> NNTP access and archives at nntp.perl.org will be available a few
>> hours after the first posting to the list.
>
> Let the games begin...
Those of us with subs to perl6-all will get
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 14:53:37 -0800
>> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>>
>>
>> If anyone knows the answer to these two que
"Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't see why I'd want to do it with arrays, but...
>>
>> %a_students = %grades{grep /^a/i, keys %grades};
>
> Looks like that's just the same as
>
> %a_students = grep {.key ~~ :i/^a/}, %grades.kv;
I think you could probably get away without
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
>
> @a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
> @b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
> @c = @grades[grep 70 <= $_ < 80, @grades];
>
> Granted, it's fairly compact as it is but I'
"Paul Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Austin Hastings said:
>
>> sub callmysub
>> {
>> mysub("Testing .. 1, 2, 3!"; key => 1024, align => Module::RIGHT);
>> }
>>
>> Which, upon reflection, apparently introduces an "implicit hashparsing"
>> context for autoquoting hashkeys.
>
> Those are p
It occurred to me that being able to set up 'pure' functions in such a
way that they are lazily evaluated when passed a superposition might
be a win.
And then I got to thinking about what would be required from the
language to allow me to implement this functionality in a module. I am
assuming (fo
So, I was, thinking about the way Common Lisp handles keyword
arguments. It's possible to declare a Lisp function as follows:
(defun make-para ( content &key alignment font size color ) ...)
The point here is that the first argument is dealt with positionally,
and subsequent, optional args ar
arry had thought long and hard about whether or not to interleave
sources and iterators before deciding on the current syntax.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W23612C52
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y54632C52
Nondeterministic algorithms, flexops, and stuff
Piers Cawley made heads hur
Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Phew! I'm slightly concerned at this list making Piers's job too easy,
> but have tried to minimize that effect by posting on a Monday (meaning
> that this mail is ineligible for inclusion in the next summary and is
> likely to be out of date by the time of th
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> So, on the train this morning, I had a moment of Satori. What's wrong
>> with doing what we think of as bitwise operations using the flexops
>> and adding a 'bitwise' context? So,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> for @a -> $x, $y { ... $x is topic ... }
>
> for @a ; @b ->
> $x, $y ; $z { ... WHAT is topic ? ... }
>
> what is topic in multi stream loop ?
The first argument to the sub. Always. Unless you do 'is topic' after
a different arg. So, in the example giv
So, on the train this morning, I had a moment of Satori. What's wrong
with doing what we think of as bitwise operations using the flexops
and adding a 'bitwise' context? So, a bitwise op becomes:
bitwise ( $a | $b | $c & $d );
And the superposition will collapse in a 'mash everything together
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021027
You may have noticed that this summary is late. Um... [looks sheepish,
shuffles feet], the dog ate my homework. I did a tiny bit of
procrastination at the beginning of the week and then got totally
overtaken by events involving failed
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I'd love to see something like the whole Smalltalk
> Collection hierarchy available complete with Bags, Sets,
> Dictionaries, OrderedCollections and the whole deal. I note, for
> instance that Christian Lemburg has imple
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the "Re: Wh<[ie]>ther Infix Superposition ops" thread
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> But given a decent Collection hierarchy:
>>
>> my $seen = Set.new($start,$finish);
>&
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:03:55PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Hey, that's neat. Although it looks like it returns the $src when there
>> > isn&#x
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:25:02PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Given an acyclic graph of nodes, where a node has a method C,
>> returning a list of all the nodes it points to, is it the case that
>> the following code
Given an acyclic graph of nodes, where a node has a method C,
returning a list of all the nodes it points to, is it the case that
the following code:
sub descent($src, $dst) {
when $src == $dst { return $dst }
when !$src.kids{ die }
otherwise {
return ( $src, descent(any(
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 01:50 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> PS: Is anyone collecting these examples. It would make writing that
>> perl.com
>> article much easier for me ;-)
>
> But of course! Piers is summarizing this entire thread -- rig
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
>> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
>> superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Larry wrote:
>
>> All other things being equal, I think people will find modal operators
>> more confusing than if we just make separate operators.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> That being said, I'm still wondering whether we can finesse it.
>
> We can get close. B
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
>> Statements like this bother me. Not because I don't think it might be
>> true, but because it's in future tense. If someone (named Damian :-)
>> wrote a superposition synopsis that showed the many and va
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
>> From: Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 05:45:01 +
>> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>>
>
"Markus Laire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 29 Oct 2002 at 5:45, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
>> say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
>> superposit
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more intention revealing than the
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We could make "return" a method as well as a built-in sub. That gives us
>
> Loop.return($x)
> Sub.return($x)
> Topic.return($x)
> Thread.return($x)
> Block.return($x)
> There.return($x)
>
> or
>
> return Loop: $x
> return Su
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>> Larry's just thinking out loud, right?
>
> Yes, and so is everyone else. Most posts here, including Larry's,
> are stream-of-conciousness. Heck, in one of the last ones I swear
> there were, what, 6 or 7 possible ways to say t
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
>> But our version of "understandable" still means a steep, steep learning
>> curve.
>
> It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
> curve has a 180 degree turn.
>
> Quick: what are
Angel Faus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking about macros, I renember reading somewhere something about
> Scheme hygenic macros, but i didn't really understood it.
>
> Do they solve the maintenance problems of Lisp macros? Would they be
> applicable to perl?
Scheme hygenic macros do a lot
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021020
I'm sorry to have to inform you that I've returned from my holiday (no,
base jumping and paragliding were *not* involved) and that this week's
summary will not be written by the estimable Leon Brocard. Sorry about
that. Leon is current
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:33:28 -0400
>
> I like the idea of this. The finer details, like returning what to
> do, could be more elegant. But the extensibility idea is golden.
>
>> To change how certain e
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If every Object happens to implement the Class interface, merely
>> declaring the invocant as a Class would presumably have this effect,
>> whether or not MD was in effect. I don't know whether that's a goo
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
> : We also need a signifier for class methods (assuming
> : a distinction is made).
> :
> : Perhaps one could use an initial cap to indicate a class
> : attribute/method:
> :
> : class foo {
> : my $bar;# my i
arrot, and
if there wasn't, how should he go about writing one? My tip: Do it, use
the tools you prefer to make the kind of guide you would have welcomed
finding when you first came to parrot. Just don't use proprietary
formats. Heck, it's how I started writing thes
The Perl 6 Summary for the Week Ending 20020822
So, another week, another Perl 6 summary. Let's see if I can get through
this one without calling Tim Bunce 'Tim Bunch' shall we? Or maybe I
should leave a couple of deliberate errors in as a less than cunning
ploy to get more feedbac
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>> Happy birthday to me!
>
>
> Congratulations.
>
>> ... by my turning 35 on the 15th
>
>
> 44 on 16th - yes Sept.
Congrats to you too. So, should I start maintaining a birt
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 11:42, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> The Perl 6 Summary for the Week Ending 20020915
>> Happy birthday to me!
>
> Indeed!
>
> And thank you so much for this. You have a way of taking a tangled
rlink.com/?M2E0225D1
Scheme Implementation Details
Jürgen Bömmels and Piers Cawley continued their discussion of how to go
about implementing a scheme interpreter, and "lambda" in particular.
Piers made noises about a proof of concept implementation of Scheme that
he&#x
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is for everyone: <
>In Perl, this problem comes up most often when people say "Why do I
>have to put a semicolon after do {} or eval {} when it looks like a
>complete statement?"
>
>Well, in Perl 6, you don't, if the final c
So, the new rule for blocks and when the need semicolons seems to be
"You don't need a semicolon if the block is the last argument of a
subroutine which expects a block as its last argument", which is all
very well and all, but where does that leave:
sub foo ( &block ) {...}
...
$wibb
Lists for languages/scheme
Jügen Bömmels offered a patch implementing Scheme pairs, using simple
Arrays. Dan was impressed, and wondered how far we were from 'real'
scheme. Jürgen thinks we're quite some way away; we still need symbols,
strings, lexicals, functions, macro
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:20:10PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:46:24PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>> >> What is really n
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 10:46:24PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>> What is really needed is something that converts the date syntax
>> to normal Perl code:
>>
>>rule iso_date { () -
>>() -
>>()
>>
xing", pairs => "and", "scalars");
It turns out that the @kv_array case will Just Work, and the last case
will cause discussion to break out. Damian thought that the example
above would throw an error because there are 5 elements in the list.
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
>
>> but what simon was saying (and i agree) is the the pair IS a single
>> item. it becomes the key and its value is 'scalars'.
>
> No. If it's a PAIR, then its key is the key and its value is the value.
>
>
>> hashes can now take ob
This came up in a discussion on London.pm about Damian's Perl 6 talk,
which led us to wonder about control exceptions and how they're
handled. At the moment, control exceptions fall into the 'vaguely
handwavy' category, and what follows is my attempt to work out how I
think they should behave...
David Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Maybe we should just say 'sod it' and implement the entire Smalltalk
>> Collection hierarchy and have done with it? Sets, bags, hashes
>> (dictionaries for the Smalltalker), whatever, all have
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> >> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
> >>
> >> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a prope
201 - 300 of 534 matches
Mail list logo
