[Raku/old-design-docs] 07ac3b: rm broken link

Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs Commit: 07ac3bb2ab509a5143e5f99a0e9c32b823828fae https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs/commit/07ac3bb2ab509a5143e5f99a0e9c32b823828fae Author: librasteve <40125330+librast...@users.noreply.github.com>

raku/docs: Planning

Mentioning on list since I know this has specifically come up in the past. If you are working on something for the documentation site, please let me know. I am trying to get a list of all the projects in flight right now. Please see https://github.com/Raku/doc/wiki for what's on my list right

Re: Docs on docs.raku.org need automated build

On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 12:43 JJ Merelo wrote: > Done also for the official site, https://docs.raku.org > Check it out. > Thank you, JJ--it looks great! -Tom

Re: Docs on docs.raku.org need automated build

Done also for the official site, https://docs.raku.org Check it out. El lun, 15 nov 2021 a las 19:17, JJ Merelo () escribió: > Testing the newly deployed docs here https://rakudocs.github.io/ > > I'll try and do a couple of updates and checks and if everything is OK, >

Re: Docs on docs.raku.org need automated build

Testing the newly deployed docs here https://rakudocs.github.io/ I'll try and do a couple of updates and checks and if everything is OK, will deploy to the official site. El dom, 14 nov 2021 a las 19:54, Tom Browder () escribió: > Doc site i see is several weeks old and missing my last mer

Docs on docs.raku.org need automated build

Doc site i see is several weeks old and missing my last merged contrib on example of programmatic use of ‘require’. Any hope of a rebuild this month? -Tom

[Raku/old-design-docs] 63e44c: S22: Clarify how system specific values work and c...

Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs Commit: 63e44c36351887f1eb76500d7102f0db44848d27 https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs/commit/63e44c36351887f1eb76500d7102f0db44848d27 Author: niner Date: 2020-10-01 (Thu, 01 Oct 2020) Changed paths

[Raku/old-design-docs] b13e78: Update dependency specifications in S22

Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs Commit: b13e78fe5b9dc10bfdacb0122ea40a77b6037ac9 https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs/commit/b13e78fe5b9dc10bfdacb0122ea40a77b6037ac9 Author: Stefan Seifert Date: 2020-09-30 (Wed, 30 Sep 2020

[Raku/old-design-docs]

Branch: refs/heads/zag-patch-1 Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs

[Raku/old-design-docs] 1a90f9: fix identifier in used context

Branch: refs/heads/master Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs Commit: 1a90f942619e0d027f9c19228003e20a1997364d https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs/commit/1a90f942619e0d027f9c19228003e20a1997364d Author: Aliaksandr Zahatski Date: 2020-04-26 (Sun, 26 Apr 2020

[Raku/old-design-docs] 1a90f9: fix identifier in used context

Branch: refs/heads/zag-patch-1 Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs Commit: 1a90f942619e0d027f9c19228003e20a1997364d https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs/commit/1a90f942619e0d027f9c19228003e20a1997364d Author: Aliaksandr Zahatski Date: 2020-04-26 (Sun, 26 Apr 2020

[Raku/old-design-docs]

Branch: refs/heads/design-into-raku Home: https://github.com/Raku/old-design-docs

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-11 14:26, Joseph Brenner wrote: Joseph Brenner wrote: The signatures in the documentation are certainly helpful, but they're no substitute for code examples. I'd go after adding more code examples, rather than removing other stuff. But then, maybe I'm coming into this

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-11 14:06, Joseph Brenner wrote: The signatures in the documentation are certainly helpful, but they're no substitute for code examples. I'd go after adding more code examples, rather than removing other stuff. Hi Joseph, I would compromise on that. I would also like to see

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

Joseph Brenner wrote: > The signatures in the documentation are certainly helpful, but they're > no substitute for code examples. I'd go after adding more code > examples, rather than removing other stuff. But then, maybe I'm coming into this discussion in the middle-- is the topic here adding

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

The signatures in the documentation are certainly helpful, but they're no substitute for code examples. I'd go after adding more code examples, rather than removing other stuff.

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

I would argue that signatures are great for any command line script because you can use them with MAIN to get input checking. On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, 18:07 Veesh Goldman, wrote: > I believe there's a disparity here between the needs of a sysadmin and > people who program hardcore with Raku.

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

I believe there's a disparity here between the needs of a sysadmin and people who program hardcore with Raku. That's what I'm seeing in the discussion here. Signatures are very important to those who write programs, because they help you arrange your code in a clean and maintainable and

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

> The signatures are very important to the developers. > They only confuse the programmer. Speak for yourself, I'm not developing the innards of Raku, I'm just using it for projects- like you. And I NEED the signatures. They tell me so much!! -y On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 6:53 PM ToddAndMargo via

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

efinition, including signature, right there—signatures in the docs are not intended for them. If one is /using/ a routine in internals/core, or needs to refer to other versions of a multi, then that “developer” is acting as a “programmer” at that moment—they are using, not modifying, the routine in

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

ruction. And, in fact, I find it difficult to understand why you’d think most routine signatures would be *more* useful to “developers” vs. “programmers” in your formulation: if one is modifying a routine in core or in the compiler, one has the definition, including signature, right there—signature

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

Hi Folks, While the tone of this conversation is a little unpleasant I think there are good points about the readability of the reference documentation. For instance, I understand that List inherits from "Cool", but listing trigonometric functions on this page https://docs.raku.org/type/List

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-10 03:31, Veesh Goldman wrote: Nobody said not to do it. Please make more documentation available to the public. But that doesn't mean that these docs need to change. It's reference, not guides. And also it doesn't need to be a wiki. You could do everything on GitHub, where most

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-10 03:02, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: I would "It would", not "I would" Stinkin' typos

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

Nobody said not to do it. Please make more documentation available to the public. But that doesn't mean that these docs need to change. It's reference, not guides. And also it doesn't need to be a wiki. You could do everything on GitHub, where most people already do their collaboration

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

instance. The wording you use is a bit weird and it speak to my beliefe that you don't really get Signatures.     Do you see anywhere in the docs where how to read     signatures is explained?  (Don't get any ideas.  The     signatures should not be there to start with.) Apart from here? https://

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

y beliefe that you don't really get Signatures. Do you see anywhere in the docs where how to read signatures is explained?  (Don't get any ideas.  The signatures should not be there to start with.) Apart from here? https://docs.raku.org/type/Signature I read through this (and some b

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

n writing that documentation for all those years really, really deserve to be thanked. A lot. -- Fernando Santagata Hi Fernando, You make good points. Please do not misinterpret my issues with they way the docs are presented as diminishing the work those people have put into it. Good grief, I have enough

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

gt; and explain each part. > > I did. It's pretty good except your understanding of the first part Str:D : This indicates that this method will be used when it's called on a defined (D) String instance. The wording you use is a bit weird and it speak to my beliefe that you don't really

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 3:53 AM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users < perl6-us...@perl.org> wrote: > On 2019-12-09 09:44, Trey Harris wrote: > > Signatures are important to Raku. > > Trey, > > The signatures are very important to the developers. > They only confuse the programmer. > > -T > I'm a

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

in various ways until you say you get it (and offer sample code to show that you do, indeed, seem to get it). 3. You complain the docs do not describe it in a way that you (or anyone—you frequently invoke yourself as the avatar of the “ordinary programmer” as opposed  to, for example

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

that already know what they are doing? Why do you even post them for the general public? Have you seem Perl 5's perldoc? They are extremely well done. We need to follow their example. See any signatures in them? Perldocs is written for the user, not the developer. Raku's docs, as you just

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-09 09:44, Trey Harris wrote: Signatures are important to Raku. Trey, The signatures are very important to the developers. They only confuse the programmer. -T

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-09 07:35, Curt Tilmes wrote: Hmm... Project for someone bored -- We've already got a great Signature parser, how about creating a simplified human (HTML) description automagically from any Signature, then linking it from the actual Signature on each page... I second that request!

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

ode as it will be written in the Str Role. I *highly* advise learning how signatures work. Hi Simon, Did you see the How To post I made on ".contains"? At the bottom of the How To, I take apart the signature and explain each part. Do you see anywhere in the docs where how to re

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/696eea2de6e67135b3b574ecb579ede16045ede6 This is where the incorrect information presented on the Docs for .contains is being corrected (among other things). The commit is a fascinating insight into how the developers are doing their thing. As a BS in Electrical

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

(Apologies, forgot to reply all.) On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:47 AM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users < perl6-us...@perl.org> wrote: > Hi Phillip, > Have you ever been to an IEEE seminar and attended a lecture > on a subject that you have intimate knowledge on hoping > to pick up some additional tips.

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

always in reaction to the same pattern of behavior: 1. You ask a question about something. 2. It is explained in various ways until you say you get it (and offer sample code to show that you do, indeed, seem to get it). 3. You complain the docs do not describe it in a way that you (or anyone—you freq

Re: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

02:00, JJ Merelo wrote: >> > Other than that, it's clear from the context that it returns a Boolean >> You still need to change the target audience of the docs >> from the Developers to the Rakoons. >> >> The reference documentation (especially deep inside) is NOT in

Re: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

a Boolean > You still need to change the target audience of the docs > from the Developers to the Rakoons. > > The reference documentation (especially deep inside) is NOT intended for > brand new people to the language. > > They need to start with the introduction, the tutorials

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:29 AM Simon Proctor wrote: > I think this does highlight something we probably should document more. > > How to read signatures. Because it's a *very* powerful part of the > language that if you don't understand you're only using it at half strength. > > multi method

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:07 AM ToddAndMargo via perl6-users < perl6-us...@perl.org> wrote: > On 2019-12-09 02:00, JJ Merelo wrote: > > Other than that, it's clear from the context that it returns a Boolean > You still need to change the target audience of the docs >

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

eedle, Cool:D $pos --> Bool:D) > > In the above, it is not real obvious to the Riff-Raff > (me), who is not have developer level ledge, that the > "Str:D" in inside the parenthesis, but instead feeding > the method. You have to get use to the cryptography. > > Yo

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

have to get use to the cryptography. You still need to change the target audience of the docs from the Developers to the Rakoons. -T

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

quot;call" a method, then the meaning is clear; and in fact, the way it > > was written seems like the obvious way to write it. > > > > If you don't know what those words mean, then the meaning won't be > > clear. (But even then, clicking the link on "Str.contains&q

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

quot; and glancing down that page a little should give you some hints.) Perhaps, to make it easier for you to understand, the docs could stop using words like "invocant" and "coerce". But that makes it *harder* for people who do understand these words, because those people

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

all. >> > >> > -- Forwarded message - >> > From: *Tom Browder* > tom.brow...@gmail.com>> >> > Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 04:58 >> > Subject: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?] >> > To: ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

m > >> > > Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 04:58 > > Subject: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?] > > To: ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com>> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 23:23 ToddAndMargo via perl6-users > > mailto:perl6-us...@perl.org&g

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-07 03:59, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users wrote: On 2019-12-07 03:00, Tom Browder wrote: Forgot to reply to all. -- Forwarded message - From: *Tom Browder* <mailto:tom.brow...@gmail.com>> Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 04:58 Subject: Raku, docs, help [was: R

Re: Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

On 2019-12-07 03:00, Tom Browder wrote: Forgot to reply to all. -- Forwarded message - From: *Tom Browder* mailto:tom.brow...@gmail.com>> Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 04:58 Subject: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?] To: ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com>> O

Fwd: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?]

Forgot to reply to all. -- Forwarded message - From: Tom Browder Date: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 04:58 Subject: Raku, docs, help [was: Re: vulgar?] To: ToddAndMargo On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 23:23 ToddAndMargo via perl6-users < perl6-us...@perl.org> wrote: > On 2019-12-06 1

Re: is inlinable trait missing from docs

gt; log can give you more specific info on why an inline was not performed in a > given case. > > HTH > - Timo > On 13/07/2019 12:51, Marcel Timmerman wrote: > > On 7/13/19 12:37 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote: > > I wouldn't put "is inlinable" in the docs; it require

Re: is inlinable trait missing from docs

ase. HTH   - Timo On 13/07/2019 12:51, Marcel Timmerman wrote: On 7/13/19 12:37 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote: I wouldn't put "is inlinable" in the docs; it requires the user to put a QAST tree in the value, which isn't a thing an end-user would touch, IMO. In fact I'm not sure why we have a t

Re: is inlinable trait missing from docs

Timmerman wrote: > On 7/13/19 12:37 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote: >> I wouldn't put "is inlinable" in the docs; it requires the user to put a >> QAST tree in the value, which isn't a thing an end-user would touch, >> IMO. In fact I'm not sure why we have a trait for tha

Re: is inlinable trait missing from docs

On 7/13/19 12:37 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote: I wouldn't put "is inlinable" in the docs; it requires the user to put a QAST tree in the value, which isn't a thing an end-user would touch, IMO. In fact I'm not sure why we have a trait for that at all, since it's not used anywhere in rakud

Re: is inlinable trait missing from docs

I wouldn't put "is inlinable" in the docs; it requires the user to put a QAST tree in the value, which isn't a thing an end-user would touch, IMO. In fact I'm not sure why we have a trait for that at all, since it's not used anywhere in rakudo's source. On 13/07/2019 12:33, Marcel Timme

is inlinable trait missing from docs

Hi, I found out about a trait 'is inlinable' when I made a typo in using a trait on subs. There is no documentation for it so I thought maybe it is not implemented, experimental or some other reason it is kept out of the docs. Otherwise it should be documented too. Great work

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

Ordinarily I would agree with you. But I know my own brain and how it works. I only learn by doing. Have tried to change that and can't. A good tutorial book *will* make you "do." The brian d foy book does exactly that with things to try, and questions to explore in your own code. It

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

The signatures in the docs are often the exact same signatures as the code they are documenting. > Str.^lookup('contains').candidates.map: *.signature.say (Str:D: Cool:D $needle, *%_) (Str:D: Str:D $needle, *%_) (Str:D: Cool:D $needle, Cool:D $pos, *%_) (Str:D: Str:D $nee

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

(at no cost) to download it and start enjoying it. Cheers, Laurent. Hi Laurent, Ordinarily I would agree with you. But I know my own brain and how it works. I only learn by doing. Have tried to change that and can't. When I "dive in", I open up the reference docs and bang away. I also

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

t part. But the docs DO have examples, and any reader who sees the lack of a suitable one should file an issue or contribute a suitable change. I got my start here as a noob p6 user (coming from years of p5 use) contributing to the docs. And I, too, found many examples too obtuse for a noob, an

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

On 09/11/2018 04:53 AM, Tom Browder wrote: Todd, some free advice: 1. DOCUMENTATION The docs are a volunteer effort. You can help by contributing changes and submitting issues. Hi Tom, I have started contributing to this effort as well. One of the big hurdles is that those maintaining

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:39 AM Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One of the paradoxes of documentation, and the teaching of many > abstract topics, is that those with the most in-depth knowledge of the ... I agree with you for the most part. But the docs DO have ex

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

One of the paradoxes of documentation, and the teaching of many abstract topics, is that those with the most in-depth knowledge of the topic,are the least suitable to explain it, precisely because of that knowledge. They can't remember what it felt like not to know something, and they've usually

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:31 AM Simon Proctor wrote: > > It's a very good read. :) Yes it is!

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

date (number of small corrections made following > comments from readers). > > So it would take you just a few minutes (at no cost) to download it and > start enjoying it. > > Cheers, > Laurent. > > Le mar. 11 sept. 2018 à 13:26, ToddAndMargo a > écrit : > >> Hi All

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

. 2018 à 13:26, ToddAndMargo a écrit : > Hi All, > > Not to beat a dead horse, but Perl 6's docs are > miserably hard to understand. > > Here is a comparison of Perl 5's perldocs and Perl 6's > docs: > > Perl 5: > > $ perldoc -f index > index STR,SUB

Re: A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

Todd, some free advice: 1. DOCUMENTATION The docs are a volunteer effort. You can help by contributing changes and submitting issues. Try to use the docs first instead of using an internet search. That will help you submit issues if you don't find what you are looking for. You really need

A comparison between P5 docs and p6 docs

Hi All, Not to beat a dead horse, but Perl 6's docs are miserably hard to understand. Here is a comparison of Perl 5's perldocs and Perl 6's docs: Perl 5: $ perldoc -f index index STR,SUBSTR,POSITION index STR,SUBSTR The index function searches for one string within another

[perl6/specs] bc769f: Add removed docs commit

on, 17 Apr 2017) Changed paths: M v6d.pod Log Message: --- Add removed docs commit for salvagin later

Re: Perl 6 docs

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 16:49:04 +0100 Gabor Szabo wrote: > https://github.com/perl6/doc/issues/1257 Thanks for clarifying!

Re: Perl 6 docs

https://github.com/perl6/doc/issues/1257

Re: Perl 6 docs

Hi Gabor, On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:36:31 +0100 Gabor Szabo wrote: > When I search for %INC at https://docs.perl6.org/ it offers "%INC (Perl 5)" > but when I search for the more common @INC > Your sentence appears to be cut in the middle - I cannot understand it. Can you

Re: Perl 6 docs

Please open an issue at https://github.com/perl6/doc/issues so it gets tracked, thanks! On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote: > When I search for %INC at https://docs.perl6.org/ it offers "%INC (Perl 5)" > but when I search for the more common @INC > > Luckily

Perl 6 docs

When I search for %INC at https://docs.perl6.org/ it offers "%INC (Perl 5)" but when I search for the more common @INC Luckily the former leads to https://docs.perl6.org/language/5to6-perlvar which also has information on the latter, but it would be nice if that was also recognized in the

[perl #129246] [DOCS] bad link to "Slurpy Arguments" at https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature#Constraining_Slurpy_Arguments

# New Ticket Created by Brandon Allbery # Please include the string: [perl #129246] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=129246 > It goes to

[perl #128801] Perl 6 docs don't mention pragmas in a doc search

# New Ticket Created by Tom Browder # Please include the string: [perl #128801] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=128801 > This transaction appears to have no content

Re: [BUG] Rakudo docs not converted to man nor installed for "make install"

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Sam S. via RT <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote: > What docs? > > The ones in the 'docs/' folder in the git repo? > Those seem to be project docs aimed at developers working on Rakudo, not > at users of Rakudo. > I.e. that folder is basicall

[perl #128087] [BUG] Rakudo docs not converted to man nor installed for "make install"

# New Ticket Created by Tom Browder # Please include the string: [perl #128087] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=128087 > This is Rakudo version 2016.04 built on MoarVM version 2016.04 implementing Perl 6.c.

Re: Two topics not found in docs search: 'constant' and 'heredocs'.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Timo Paulssen wrote: ... > I think you'd have to use the X tag in the pod source to create an index > entry that the search feature would then allow you to use. Pull request submitted and accepted to add the two items. -Tom

Re: Two topics not found in docs search: 'constant' and 'heredocs'.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Timo Paulssen wrote: > On 04/04/16 13:42, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> How are you searching exactly? With which command/which URL? > Probably the search field on the doc page. Precisely. -Tom

Re: Two topics not found in docs search: 'constant' and 'heredocs'.

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Timo Paulssen wrote: > On 04/04/16 13:42, Shlomi Fish wrote: ... > I think you'd have to use the X tag in the pod source to create an index > entry that the search feature would then allow you to use. Thanks. -Tom

Re: Two topics not found in docs search: 'constant' and 'heredocs'.

On 04/04/16 13:42, Shlomi Fish wrote: How are you searching exactly? With which command/which URL? -- Shlomi Probably the search field on the doc page. I can reproduce both terms not giving any results there. I think you'd have to use the X tag in the pod source to create an index

Re: Two topics not found in docs search: 'constant' and 'heredocs'.

oc.perl6.org/language/quoting#Heredocs%3A_%3Ato > > but neither is listed when doing a search. > How are you searching exactly? With which command/which URL? -- Shlomi > And how does one make a phrase or term searchable in the docs anyway? > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > > -Tom

Two topics not found in docs search: 'constant' and 'heredocs'.

The declarator "constant" is found here: http://doc.perl6.org/language/5to6-nutshell#constant And "Heredocs" are discussed here: http://doc.perl6.org/language/quoting#Heredocs%3A_%3Ato but neither is listed when doing a search. And how does one make a phrase or term se

[perl6/specs] 33eaff: Update Supply introduction and method docs for ser...

paths: M S17-concurrency.pod Log Message: --- Update Supply introduction and method docs for serial supplies Also some Channel clarifications. Commit: cc534c403199b0804fe05bd5cb88676142a878a1 https://github.com/perl6/specs/commit/cc534c403199b0804fe05bd5cb88676142

[perl6/specs] 4c608a: Sync design docs to Supply/Supplier split

paths: M S17-concurrency.pod Log Message: --- Sync design docs to Supply/Supplier split

Re: [perl #126202] LTA results for trailing declarative docs

Change " class Foo { method bar { } #= baz " to " class Foo { method bar { } #= Some comment about Foo "? On 9/26/15, Rob Hoelz wrote: > # New Ticket Created by Rob Hoelz > # Please include the string: [perl #126202] > # in the subject line of all future

[perl #126202] LTA results for trailing declarative docs

# New Ticket Created by Rob Hoelz # Please include the string: [perl #126202] # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. # https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=126202 > In this example: class Foo { method bar { } #= baz }; say

Re: Proposed docs for C

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:28:59AM -0500, andy_b...@wiwb.uscourts.gov wrote: > [1 1 1 1] > next > [1 1 1 1 1 1] > next > [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] > > vs > > [1 2 3] > next > [1 2 3 3] > next > [1 2 3 3 3] > > I think the latter is clearer, though perhaps the problem is the original > code is a bit

Re: Proposed docs for C

On 9/16/15, David H. Adler wrote: > So, how about this > > perl6 -e 'sub a {state @x; @x.push(++$)}; say a for 1..6;' > > [1] > [1 2] > Even better, but how about 'for a..f'? That makes it clear that the list values are being used, not some sort of subscript. (The less

Re: Proposed docs for C

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 04:42:27PM -0400, Parrot Raiser wrote: > On 9/16/15, David H. Adler wrote: > > > So, how about this > > > > perl6 -e 'sub a {state @x; @x.push(++$)}; say a for 1..6;' > > > > [1] > > [1 2] > > > > Even better, but how about 'for a..f'? That makes it

Re: Proposed docs for C

[1 1 1 1] next [1 1 1 1 1 1] next [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] vs [1 2 3] next [1 2 3 3] next [1 2 3 3 3] I think the latter is clearer, though perhaps the problem is the original code is a bit overly-contrived (I'm thinking ;-). It shows better the variation after each call, maybe. my 2.00e-02

Re: Proposed docs for C

The combination of different numbers on separate lines looks clearest to me. On 9/14/15, yary wrote: > Keep it on separate lines, I don't know how that formatting got lost (it's > showing up as separate lines in my history). > > As for the rest of it, curious as to consensus.

Proposed docs for C

Maybe a bit long, but think it explains it in a way people will understand. Thoughts? https://gist.github.com/dha/8009c28d7bf2d1ca8875 dha -- David H. Adler - - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ I think the scale of relative badness is broken in this place. - Diablo

Re: Proposed docs for C

Keep it on separate lines, I don't know how that formatting got lost (it's showing up as separate lines in my history). As for the rest of it, curious as to consensus. -y On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:06 PM, David H. Adler wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:13:21PM -0400, yary

Re: Proposed docs for C

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:13:21PM -0400, yary wrote: > Using different numbers for the examples helps visualize what's > initialized vs added later: ... > *[1 2 3]next[1 2 3 3]next[1 2 3 3 3]* I don't know. I think, by having it on separate lines, and watching the row of '1's extend, is less

Re: Proposed docs for C

Using different numbers for the examples helps visualize what's initialized vs added later: sub a { *state @x = 1, 2;@x.push(3)*} =end code will continue to append each time it is called. So, =begin code say a; say "next"; say a; say "next"; say a; =end code will output =begin

[perl6/specs] 6e1c9d: Update design docs for how Str/NFG has worked out.

) Changed paths: M S02-bits.pod M S03-operators.pod M S05-regex.pod M S32-setting-library/Str.pod M contents.pod Log Message: --- Update design docs for how Str/NFG has worked out. Of note, the StrLen and StrPos types are gone, and Str only works at grapheme level

Re: [perl #125312] 'start' is a sub in Rakudo; design docs suggest it should be a statement prefix

at unknown file:1 ➜ say start sub start (code, :catch(catch)) { #`(Sub|49183056) ... } Discussion: smls maybe I'm misinterpreting the design docs? smls it's not super explicit about it. masak They parse the same as phasers and `try` already working that way both seem to point to your

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >