Larry Wall writes:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(x, y, z) - $x, $y, $z {
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:27:56PM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
: Mutt?
:
: I'm using mutt and I still haven't had the privledge of correctly viewing one
: of these unicode characters yet. I'm gonna be really mad if you say you're
: also using an OS X terminal. I suspect that it's my horrific OS
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
: will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
: from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
:
: for
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:21:54PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
But let's keep it
out of the signature, I think. In other words, if something like
for @x ∥ @y ∥ @z - $x, $y, $z { ... }
is to work, then
@result = @x ∥ @y ∥ @z;
has to interleave @x, @y,
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
for zip(a,b,c) - $x,$y,$z { ... }
sub zip (\:ref repeat{1,}) {
my $max =
Scott Duff wrote:
Very nice. The n-ary zip operator.
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well?
Yes, I expect so. Much as C|, C, and C^ will be operator versions
of Cany, Call, and Cone.
And I'd suggest that it be implemented something like:
sub zip(ARRAY *sources; $by = 1) {
if
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode characters, not to mention everyone
else's. If you don't
Larry Wall:
(B# for @x $B!B(B @y $B!B(B @z - $x, $y, $z { ... }
(B
(BEven if you decide to use UTF-8 operators (which I am Officially
(BRecommending Against), *please* don't use this one. This shows up as a
(Bbox in the Outlook UTF-8 font.
(B
(B--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04/11/02 17:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode
Larry wrote:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(x, y, z) - $x, $y, $z { ... }
the
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
You know, separate streams in a for loop are not going to be that
common in practic, so maybe we should look around a little harder for
a supercomma that isn't a semicolon. Now *that* would be a big step
in reducing ambiguity...
Or
11 matches
Mail list logo
