On 22/06/07, brian d foy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
===Per class documentation, not per file documentation
Related to the one above, I'd like to have NAME, SYNOPSIS, etc. for
each class, not just per file. Well, what I really want is the
Smalltalk class and method browsers, but I know I'm not
round some of our interpolated values.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
...
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
that is 'a slurpy list of arrays' or 'the rest
of the arguments, without flattening'. If I *really* want aggressive
flattening then I can call, say, @slurpy_param.flatten
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
writer if they appeared
in the same inbox as the rest of p6c.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
of calculus. So, we're
speaking of the same thing, just in different terms.
Umm... I think you have that relationship the wrong way around.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
. If people want me to be machine for cranking out quote
file fodder, I'll do my best. But I also care about my friends.
Larry
EOQ
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
retooling of
the call stack if they are to work properly. And one shot continuations are the
next best thing to useless.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
are different, you have to be careful
about doing an explicit return in them because that returns to the caller of
the lexical scope in which they were defined (otherwise for ... - ... {...}
wouldn't work)
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
been protected. it's the work of a
moment to write:
thing.send(:children, *args)
(Oh, and Ruby has first-class block. W00T!)
And continuations. But continuations are scary. Good scary, but still scary.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
the beginnings of an xUnit style 'parrotunit' testing
framework, but that was written ages ago, so I'd need to start it again, but it
wasn't that hard to implement.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
Stevan Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers,
On Oct 12, 2005, at 5:22 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
We definitely have two instances of A since, B.isa(::A). We also have
a fragile implementation of count.
:)
Sorry, I purposefully made it a kludge as that is usually the way the example
Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about:
my method SCALAR::attributes($self:) { $$self }
my method HASH::attributes(%self:) { %self.kv }
my method ARRAY::attributes(@self:) { [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
method _attributes($attrs) {
my
)
}
}
Where we're assuming that a class can find all its subclasses
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
:) { $$self }
my method HASH::attributes(%self:) { %self.kv }
my method ARRAY::attributes(@self:) { [EMAIL PROTECTED] }
method _attributes($attrs) {
my @attributes = $attrs.attributes
return @attributes[0] if @attributes == 1;
...
}
Assuming it's legal.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:24:47 +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 16:57:51 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:17:05 +0200, TSa wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Exactly which exception is continued?
The bottommost one
TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, I would call *intentional* exceptions terrorism.
So that would be all exceptions then. They all get implemented somewhere, even
the ones that get thrown by builtins.
CATCH Exception { say Why do you hate freedom? }
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
the send button before I have second thoughts.
The weird thing is that the syntax I rolled there is soon to be the topic of an
original thread, once I've got the thing written up a little more.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
once a month or so that grabs shortened summary URLs and does a simple GET
on them.
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
is this:
while () {
if (@buffer MAX) {
push @buffer, $_;
next;
}
# ...
shift @buffer;
push @buffer, $_;
}
while {
if 0..MAX { push @buffer, $_; next }
end
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
a new exception that delegates to the
original exception for lots of its behaviour. If, later, you want to explicitly
get at the exception thrown by the helper function, you could do something
like:
$!.inner
--
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bofh.org.uk/
TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
HaloO,
Piers Cawley wrote:
Exactly which exception is continued?
The bottommost one. If you want to return to somewhere up its call chain, do:
$!.caller(n).continue(42)
Whow, how does a higher level exception catcher *in general* know
what type it should
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7/26/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
are the following assumptions correct?
sub foo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) { @args[0] }
say ~foo(a, b, c); # a
Yep.
my @array = a b c d;
say ~foo(@array);# a b c d (or
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 7/26/05, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
I would like to be able to iterate over all the
objects in the live set.
My Idea actually is to embedd that into the namespace syntax.
The idea is that of looking up non
Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and
let people say Any explicitly if they really want to suppress autothreading.
Otherwise conditionals and switches are going
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 8/3/05, Aankhen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So how *do* I pass an unflattened array to a function with a slurpy
parameter?
Good question. I would have thought that one of the major gains from
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Let's say I have a class, call it Foo which has a bunch of attributes, and
I've
created a few of them. Then, at runtime I do:
eval 'class Foo { has $.a_new_attribute is :default10 }';
Assuming I've got the syntax right
Let's say I have a class, call it Foo which has a bunch of attributes, and I've
created a few of them. Then, at runtime I do:
eval 'class Foo { has $.a_new_attribute is :default10 }';
Assuming I've got the syntax right for defaulting an attribute, and lets assume
I have, the Perl runtime
Sam Vilain [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Larry Wall wrote:
Users of the class includes people subclassing the class, so to them
they need to be able to use $.month_0 and $.month, even though there
is no has $.month_0 declared in the Class implementation, only
has $.month.
We thought
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:48:41PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: I propose to throw away the filesystem coupling, and map from a more
: general name of the bit of code we are requiring to a more general
: description of which instance of it we actually got.
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 11:47:47PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
: Or you could use a global, but globals are bad...
Globals are bad only if you use them to hold non-global values.
In this case it seems as though you're just going through contortions
Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 13:42:34 +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
Yuval Kogman wrote:
As I understand it SMD is now not much more than a mechanism to
place a constraint on the MMD, saying that there can only be one
method or subroutine with the same short name.
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will~
On 7/6/05, Will Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be nice if the summarizers also summarized the various
Planet RSS feeds of journal entries, if those entries were
sufficiently relevant.
I would be willing to do that, but I can't speak
So, I got to thinking about stuff. One of the more annoying things about
writing nicely decoupled objects and applications are those occasions where you
want an object to be able to create objects in another class. Say you've
provided a singleton interface to your logging system. The naive
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:11:26AM +, Smylers wrote:
The question you have to ask yourself is why should a reference be
treated different from any other value? It is a VALUE.
Except it isn't. Or at least, not all the time: it depends how
BÁRTHÁZI András [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
I'm wondering, if it's possible with Perl 6 or not?
class MyClass {
method mymethod($par) {
say mymethod called!;
}
}
class ExClass is MyClass {
mymethod(12);
}
# pugs myprog
mymethod called!
I
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As I've said before, Perl supports `alias`--it's just spelled `:=`.
Here's a rubyish idiom:
my old_behaviour := function;
function := sub { try_some_stuff || old_behaviour }
Except, with binding it doesn't work like that, you end up with
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/20/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 12:11 +0200, Juerd wrote:
I think there exists an even simpler way to avoid any mess involved.
Instead of letting AUTOLOAD receive and pass on arguments, and instead
of letting
Carl Franks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
sub factorial (Int $n is topic) {
return 1 when 0;
return $n * factorial $n;
}
hmm, could we write...
sub foo (Class $self is topic: +$foo, +$bar) {
.method;
}
to avoid having to use ./
?
Yay!
So, I was about to write the following test for Pugs:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
my sub factn (Int $acc, $i) {
return $acc if $i $n;
factn( $acc * $i, $i+1);
}
factn(1, 1);
}
When I thought to check the apocalypses and exegeses and, what do you know, I
couldn't find
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/16/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, I was about to write the following test for Pugs:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
my sub factn (Int $acc, $i) {
return $acc if $i $n;
factn( $acc * $i, $i+1);
}
factn(1, 1
Suppose I have a simple, single argument recursive function:
sub factorial (Int $n) {
return 1 if $n == 0;
return $n * factorial $n;
}
Can I write that as:
sub factorial (Int $n:) {
return 1 when 0;
return $n * factorial $n;
}
NB. Yes, I know it's a pathological
Following a conversation with Chip on IRC, is this
my @y := @foo[0..][1];
legal?
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/14/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Following a conversation with Chip on IRC, is this
my @y := @foo[0..][1];
legal?
Definitely not. But it sure would be nice if this:
my @y := @foo[0...][1];
were.
I think that's what I
Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley said:
in other words, some way of declaring that a subroutine wants to hang onto
every lexical it can see in its lexical stack, not matter what static
analysis
may say.
I'm not arguing with the idea, in general. I just want to point out
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
because of timely
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:26:59PM +0100, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Loop Improvements
Oh no! It's the register allocator problems again. One of these days I
swear I'm going to swot up on this stuff properly, work out whether it's
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 03:15:22PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
But if you fallow the calling conventions that looks like:
sub foo {
$a = 1.
$c = 10;
print $c
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Chip~
On 6/12/05, Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like like to note for other readers and the p6i archives that
Piers has failed to grasp the problem, so the solution seems pointless
to him. I'm sorry that's the case, but I've already
Chip and I have been having a discussion. I want to write:
sub foo { my $x = 1; return sub { eval $^codestring } }
say foo()($x);
I claim that that should print 1. Chip claims it should throw a warning about
because of timely destruction. My claim is that a closure should close over the
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/8/05, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, it outputs:
Foo
Foo
# dies
Yep. My mistake.
If that works, then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:51:34PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Yeah, that's pretty. But that will bite people who don't understand
: continuations; it will bite people who don't understand return; it
: will even bite people who understand continuations,
So, the return in pointy sub thread got me thinking about useful uses of return
in pointy subs that involve being able to return multiple times. And this is
what I came up with, it's an implementation of 'choose':
my give_up = sub { fail Ran out of choices }
sub choose ([EMAIL
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff - does not create a Sub
but a Block instance then Luke's code can be interpreted
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff - does not create a Sub
but a Block
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
[..] then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc = - $retval { return $retval }
For the records: the return here is the essential ingredient, right?
Without
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 6/7/05, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
sub foo (Code $code) {
my $return_to_caller = - $ret { return $ret };
$code($return_to_caller);
return 23;
}
sub
Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
sub foo (Code $code) {
my $return_to_caller = - $ret { return $ret };
$code($return_to_caller);
return 23;
}
sub bar (Code $return) { $return(42) }
say foo bar; # 42 or 23?
I think it should output
Stevan Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On May 25, 2005, at 5:39 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
One of the 'mental apps' that's been pushing some of the things I've been
asking for in Perl 6's introspection system is a combined
refactoring/debugging/editing environment for the language.
Maybe I
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 5/6/05, J Matisse Enzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've become scared that if Perl is to continue to be viable for large,
complex, multi-developer projects that the tools need to serious
catch-up with what is available for Java, for example. Things like:
Adrian Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Over the weekend I added some tests on 'undef' behaviour
(t/builtins/undef.t):
These behave as expected:
eval_is('undef * 2', undef, 'undef * 2');
That's not what I'd expect. I'd expect it to return 0 and throw a warning
about numification.
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:51, Luke Palmer wrote:
Except that mixins like this always treat things as virtual.
Whenever you mixin a role at runtime, Perl creates an empty, anonymous
subclass of the current class and mixes the role in that class. Since
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I image we've all written logging code that looks something like this
(Perl5 syntax):
sub foo {
my ($x,$y) = @_;
note(Entering frobnitz(). params: '$x', '$y');
...
}
This, of course, throws an 'uninitialized value in
wolverian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:18:45PM -0400, MrJoltCola wrote:
I cannot say how much Perl6 will expose to the high level language.
That is what I'm wondering about. I'm sorry I was so unclear.
Can you tell me what your idea of a scope is? I'm thinking a
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:36:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
: wolverian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:18:45PM -0400, MrJoltCola wrote:
: I cannot say how much Perl6 will expose to the high level language
Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 7:10 AM +0100 3/29/05, Piers Cawley wrote:
Doesn't that rather depend on the type of the attribute? Personally, if I get
an object back from accessor method then I expect that any modifications of
that object's state will be seen the next time I look
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been thinking about this in my sleep, and at the moment I think
I'd rather keep .foo meaning $_.foo, but break the automatic binding
of the invocant to $_. Instead of that, I'd like to see a really,
really short alias for $self. Suppose we pick o
Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:26 PM -0700 3/16/05, Luke Palmer wrote:
For each of the above cases, is a copy of or a reference to the
attribute returned? For each, will the calling code be able to
modify $obj's attributes by modifying the return values, or not?
Well if
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:13 AM +0100 12/14/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
subclass - To create a subclass of a class object
Is existing and used.
Right. I was listing the things we need in the protocol. Some of them
we've got,
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... While S registers hold pointers, they have
value semantics.
Is that guaranteed? Because it probably needs to be.
It's the current implementation and tested
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further to my last response. If you have things set up so that you can
return multiple times from the same function invocation then the return
continuation should have been replaced with a full continuation
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the clear explanation. I did not realize that S registers
could switch pointers, that does make things a little harder
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the clear explanation. I did not realize that S registers
could switch pointers, that does make things a little harder
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the clear explanation. I did not realize that S registers
could switch pointers, that does make things a little harder. I have
a recommendation for a possible hybrid solution. Incur the cost of
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley writes:
I'd submit that, in the vast majority of cases you're not going to be
dealing with full continuations, and on the occasions when you are the
programmer using them will be aware of the cost and will be willing to
pay it.
Yeah
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We don't have a problem WRT register preservation, the problem arises
due to register re-using.
Ah! [a light goes on over Piers's head].
Or am I missing something
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, I'm confused, I thought that the whole point of a caller saves,
continuation passing regime was that the caller only saves what it's
interested in using after the function returns.
We don't have a problem
Okay, I'm confused, I thought that the whole point of a caller saves,
continuation passing regime was that the caller only saves what it's
interested in using after the function returns. Exactly *where* that
return happens, and whether it happens more than once, is completely
irrelevant from the
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Klaas-Jan Stol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've been playing with closures and subs but I have a little bit of
trouble with those.
newsub $P0, .Closure
Miroslav Silovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
I believe that you shouldn't litter (i.e. create an immediately
GCable object) on each function call - at least not without
generational collector specifically optimised to work with this.
The problem isn't the object
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Klaas-Jan Stol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've been playing with closures and subs but I have a little bit of
trouble with those.
newsub $P0, .Closure, _foo
$P0(q)
newsub $P0, .Closure, _foo
$P0(q)
Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Nov 1, 2004, at 6:14 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Because I need to get strings working right, so I'm going to be
implementing the encoding/charset library stuff, which is going to
cause some major disruptions.
Please tag cvs before checking this in.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 2:30 PM -0500 11/2/04, Matt Fowles wrote:
All~
I don't like the idea of having to dig down through the entire return
chain promoting these guys. Is there a reason not to use DOD/GC to
recycle continuations?
Yes. Speed.
While you can skip some of
Aldo Calpini [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Larry Wall wrote:
I suppose if I were Archimedes I'd have climbed
back out and shouted Eureka, but as far as I know Archimedes never
made it to Italy, so it didn't occur to me...
well, Archimedes *was* italian. for some meaning of italian, at least.
Stéphane Payrard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 06:09:37PM +0200, Jerome Quelin wrote:
Hi,
I tried the pir-mode provided in the editor/ subdir. And when opening a
.imc file (I've associated .pir with pir-mode + font-lock-mode), I
cannot type spaces or carriage returns:
Jeff Clites [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Two questions:
1) Is it supposed to be possible to invoke a given continuation more
than once, or is it used up once invoked?
Yes, you should be able to invoke one more than once.
2) Am I supposed to be able to jump down the stack by invoking a
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:15 PM +0200 9/23/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
get_cc(OUT Px) # 1) get current continuation, i.e. the return cont.
In a rare, possibly unique burts of opcode parsimoniousness... perhaps
this would be a good thing for the
Jared Rhine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[Patrick == [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:51:18 -0600]
Patrick ...in the immediate future we'll be wanting rules/grammar
Patrick tests (to test the grammar engine) more than we'll need
Patrick perl 6 code, although we'll certainly take
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2004-09-09 at 13:14, Larry Wall wrote:
So whereas Ruby's syntax actually tends to push you toward .each
iterators, Perl 6's syntax will be fairly neutral on the subject,
or maybe biased every so slightly away from method iteration by the
width
Herbert Snorrason [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Since this list has been started, I'd assume that means work on the
final Perl6 compiler is about to start. (Although, with this crowd,
you never do know...)
In the interest of a layman's curiosity: What's the current status?
(And I already
Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In perl 6, the statement
@foo = (1.. 5) ;
is equivalent to
@foo = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
Is there similar shorthand to set @foo = (5, 3, 3, 2, 1) ? I know you can
go
@foo = reverse (1 ..5);
but this
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:45 PM +0200 8/24/04, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope -- we don't have bigints. :)
Pardon, sir?
We've got the big number code, but I don't see much reason to
distinguish
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems pretty clear that the general opinion is that operations
should produce the tightest reasonable type for an operation--integer
multiplication should produce an integer unless it can't, for example.
For our purposes I think the typing should
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's not been a big public announcement, so it's time to change that.
I'd like everyone to give a welcome to Patrick Michaud, who's
volunteered to officially take charge of getting the Perl 6 compiler
module written. I've put in yet another nudge
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Care to explain what those are, O great math teacher?
What's a math teacher?
It's the right^H^H^H^H^HAmerican way to say maths teacher.
You mean American and 'right
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
The infinite thread
Pushing onto lazy lists continued to exercise the p6l crowd (or at
least, a subset of it). Larry said that if someone wanted to hack
surreal numbers into Perl 6.1 then that would
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:00:39PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 19:35, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
: array object with which you're dealing:
:
: my @foo does
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in strings. I felt that the
$(...) and @(...) were a much cleaner and more general solution. The
prospect of backslashing every opening brace in every interpolated
string is not one I relish.
Maybe we could
Leopold Toetsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leo, we've talked about this before. The sensible and straightforward
thing to do in a case like this is to tag in the sub pmc which
register frames are used by the sub.
And what, if the sub calls another sub?
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gautam Gopalakrishnan writes:
Hello,
I've tried the archives and the 'Perl 6 essentials' book and I can't
find anything
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into
1 - 100 of 676 matches
Mail list logo
