I've been working at updating the various synopses on dev.perl.org.
In particular, you folks might like to know that the regex synopsis at:
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/synopsis/S05.html
is no longer two years out of date :-)
Larry
ok, cool, I'm beginning to understand perl6 patterns
# New Ticket Created by Matt Diephouse
# Please include the string: [perl #31647]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31647
---
osname= darwin
osvers= 7.0
arch= darwin-thread-multi-2level
cc= cc
Edward Peschko writes:
I've been working at updating the various synopses on dev.perl.org.
In particular, you folks might like to know that the regex synopsis at:
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/synopsis/S05.html
is no longer two years out of date :-)
Larry
ok, cool, I'm
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
And FWIW, I kinda like $ even with the over-done :-)
me too!
Michele
--
[...] is like requiring to play tennis with a square ball.
Which admittedly makes the game more interesting.
- Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta in comp.text.tex (edited)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
Except that only one of these variables' meanings is actually
associated with subs. And I kind of like to read the C? as which.
So if we actually make use of our sigils, we get possibilities like this:
[snip useful examples]
at first I didn't get what you
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
with a named abstraction is not terribly useful. The whichness
of C? happens subconsciously, whereas having a named hash forces
As I said in my other mail, the more I think of this the more it seems to
me to be reasonable and even natural. It's which?-ness,
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Example above becomes:
sub MediansBy5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
while @list.length = 5 {
emit (sort @list.splice(0,5))[2];
}}
That's actually a very good idea. That's why Perl 6 has it :-)
sub MediansBy5 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
gather {
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004, Rod Adams wrote:
2. Should a subsequent implicit return behave differently than usual if
some values have already been emitted?
It seems clear to me that behind the scenes there should be a stack into
which Cemitted stuff is pushed and that this is returned upon either
# With the new :ov (:overlap) modifier, the current rule will match at all
possible character positions (including overlapping) and return all matches
in a list context, or a disjunction of matches in a scalar context. The
first match at any position is returned.
$str = abracadabra;
# With the new :ov (:overlap) modifier, the current rule will match at
all possible character positions (including overlapping) and return all
matches in a list context, or a disjunction of matches in a scalar
context. The first match at any position is returned.
$str =
Hi,
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
The current version of Devel::Cover asserts that running it on a
mod_perl server ought to be as simple as adding 'use Devel::Cover' to
your startup script. However, when I do this, I get the following
failure:
Syntax error on line
On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 02:52 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
If you replace the first line:
method Rule::Group::generate(Int $n) {
With
multi generate (Rule::Group $group: Int $n) {
Everything ought still to work.
I think the best you can do is to implement it as a routine. You
I fear, and with good reasons, that this may be too wild a case of an
extremization, but I wonder wether, just like for example strings are
implemented by means of special (quote-like) operators, sigils, instead of
being syntactical creatures could be (sort of special) operators
themselved and
Matt Diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following PIR segfaults. However, if you switch the order and call
builtin before dynamic, it runs smoothly.
Ah, yep. The switching to the new bytecode segment happened twice, with
messed up returning properly.
Thanks, fixed.
leo
First I'd like to thank all who donated to TPF: a shiny new 12
Powerbook G4 ran the presentation in Belfast. Thanks to Allison bringing
it with her and to TPF.
The speed comparison of b2.py was done with an unoptimized Parrot build.
Turning on --optimize gives 0.35s vs 0.6s (Parrot vs Python)
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #31657]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31657
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 12:37:09PM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote:
But that gets me to the next question, ie I don't understand the
difference between exhaustive and overlap.
Is it that overlap fixes the first point of the pattern match and does
further scanning for all possibilities, and exhaustive
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 11:45:55AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: at first I didn't get what you mean, but now I must admit it does make
: sense and looks smart too.
I can be very persuasive when I'm right, as well as the rest of the time. :-)
Larry
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:49:07PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: I fear, and with good reasons, that this may be too wild a case of an
: extremization, but I wonder wether, just like for example strings are
: implemented by means of special (quote-like) operators, sigils, instead of
: being
Dan's recent patch to io/io_buf.c seems to have resolved this particular
issue. Thanks, Dan!
[coke - Sun Sep 19 00:48:26 2004]:
Just committed some patches to languages/tcl to make it start passing
all tests again.
However, one of my patches was to force the tests to /always/ run with
Now you're underusing smileys. I hope.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:04:01 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 01:49:07PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: I fear, and with good reasons, that this may be too wild a case of an
: extremization, but I wonder wether, just like
On Tue 21 Sep 2004 15:43, Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First I'd like to thank all who donated to TPF: a shiny new 12
Powerbook G4 ran the presentation in Belfast. Thanks to Allison bringing
it with her and to TPF.
The speed comparison of b2.py was done with an unoptimized
On Sep 21, 2004, at 2:58 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Kevin Scaldeferri wrote:
The current version of Devel::Cover asserts that running it on a
mod_perl server ought to be as simple as adding 'use Devel::Cover' to
your startup script. However, when I do this, I get the
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #31659]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31659
Hi,
this revision of Parrot m4 has no new features.
Sorry, it isn't
Larry Wall wrote:
Somebody needs to talk me out of using A..Z for the simple cases.
Larry
The Turing programming language uses splat to stand in for the length of
the array, so in Turing *a[*-1]* means what Perl 5 programmers mean when
they say *$a[-1]*.
However, splat is already quite
John Macdonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If a int1 (or int2 or nybble or other sub-addressable sized value)
is being referred to, a similar issue arises since most machines
these days have byte addressing, but do not have bit addressing. If
you can't refer directly to it, the value will have
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I surely must be misunderstanding what you're saying... the way I
read that, you're suggesting that it will matter to Perl -- not only
to the compiler but even to user code -- how the underlying hardware
addresses its memory. I really
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It took us some time discussing this... we weren't sure what tense
you were using. At first we thought it might be the past subjective,
but after a while, we decided to coin a new tense: the vapor tense. ;-)
Actually, it's not new at all; there's
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
int1, int2, int4, int8, int16, int32, int64, uint1, uint2, uint4,
uint8, uint16, uint32, uint64, num32, num64, num128, complex32,
complex64, complex128, ...
Well, all that is harmless enough, as long as I don't ever have the
misfortune to inherit
Edward Peschko writes:
Ok, fair enough.. although I'm not sure that I'm all that sure I'm completely
happy-with/understand the syntax described in that article. It works for the trivial
cases, but what about complex grammars?
It works for anything. It gets pretty inefficient in the case of
Thanks!
I just cut and pasted this from TODO.win32 - you might want to ping the list, as I
have no idea who requested the original item. =-)
Jonathan Worthington via RT wrote:
[coke - Mon Sep 20 18:35:04 2004]:
Provide setup and build instructions for Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #31662]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31662
It would be nice if we had some syntactic sugar in PIR, such that:
.sub main
Luke Palmer wrote:
Edward Peschko writes:
Ok, fair enough.. although I'm not sure that I'm all that sure I'm completely
happy-with/understand the syntax described in that article. It works for the trivial
cases, but what about complex grammars?
It works for anything. It gets pretty
On Tuesday 21 September 2004 07:18 pm, Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
Somebody needs to talk me out of using A..Z for the simple cases.
Larry
[ for array dimension placeholder ]
That might confuse users of languages that were not
C-syntax-influenced, who think that '**' means
# New Ticket Created by Will Coleda
# Please include the string: [perl #31665]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31665
I just spent an hour or so chasing my tail trying to figure out where an error in
35 matches
Mail list logo
