Funny you should mention that. This brings up something that I was
afraid to mention before, lest it be regarded as too weird. There isn't
any strong syntactic reason for subs to be delimited with just braces either.[*]
Sure, there's a historical Perl precedent, and I'd probably be forced
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
I'm imagining a table something like this:
Subroutine Pattern matching
Default { code }
The only extra piece of syntactic sugar that Crx is giving us over
Crule[*] is the ability to have arbitrary delimiters.
Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
parens.
Aww, no alphanumerics anymore. That's too bad; it was so nice in poetry
to be able to
On 27 Aug 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Debbie Pickett asked:
(Offtopic: can I say:
$c = - $xyz { mumble }
Yes. Though you need a semicolon at the end unless its the last
statement in a block.
Um... when did that rule come in? I thought a
This is really the wrong place to be sending this. This is Perl 5 (or
maybe even Perl 4, which I don't know) code, and this is a list for
discussing the design of Perl 6. A good place to send this would
probably be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good Luck,
Luke
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, frank crowley
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Steffen Mueller wrote:
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 12:00:55AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
And I'm definitely going to try any future PerlGolf challenges also
in perl6.
Is it considered better if perl6 use more characters than perl5? (ie
implying
Second, is there a prototype-way to specify the arguments to for
(specifically, the first un-parentesized multidimensional array argument)?
In other words, is that kind of signature expected to be used often enough
to justify not forcing people to explicitly extend the grammar?
If you're
The ° character doesn't have any special meaning,
that's why I choosed it in the above example.
However, it also symbolizes a little capturing
and as it isn't filled,
it could really symbolize an uncapturing.
Interesting idea. I'm not sure if I agree with it yet. However, I don't
agree
Hmm... I think I'd rather see
my $foo is Bag = array.as('Bag');
The idea being that one could treat hashes and arrays as syntactic
vitamins meaning 'Dictionary' (to use the Smalltalk term) and
'OrderedCollection', but all Collections would implement an Cas
method allowing conversion
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
Damian Conway:
# Neither. You need:
#
# $roundor7 = rx /roundascii+[17]/
#
# That is: the union of the two character classes.
How can you be sure that roundascii is implemented as a character
class, as opposed to (say) an alternation?
On 5 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 01:47, Brent Dax wrote:
Aaron Sherman:
The one thing I notice all over the place is:
sub abs($num is int){ return $num=0 ?? $num :: -$num }
Another thing I'm not sure on... how do you force numeric, but not
integer
Answering to the best of my knowledge.
On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Question #2:
Why are we storing the hypothetical's sigil in the match object?
I think it's to differentiate the different namespaces (scalar, array,
hash) within the match object's hash. Personally, I
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Mr. Nobody wrote:
While Apocolypse 5 raises some good points about problems with the old regex
syntax, its new syntax is actually worse than in perl 5. Most regexes, such
as this one to match a C float
/^([+-]?)(?=\d|\.\d)\d*(\.\d*)?([Ee]([+-]?\d+))?$/
would actually
Going back to patterns, this gives us an added bonus. It not only
explains the behavior of hypotheticals, but also of subexpression
placeholders, which are created when the pattern returns:
$self but lexicals(0=$self, 1= $self.{1}, 2= $self.{2}, etc...)
That yields the side
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Andrew Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 02:14:25PM -0500, Me wrote:
Hence the introduction of let:
m/ { let $date := date } /
which makes (a symbol table like entry for) $date available
somewhere via the match object.
Somewhere? where it appears in
This is for everyone: EOA4
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 curly is on a line by itself.
That is, if you
Luke Palmer wrote:
[quote from A4]
To me, this looks like it has answers to all these questions.
Up to a point. Look at the discussion of given/when in the same
Apocalypse. Here's some example code from A4:
given $! {
when Error::Overflow { ... }
when Error
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Ken Fox wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
This requires infinite lookahead to parse. Nobody likes infinite
lookahead grammars.
Perl already needs infinite lookahead. Anyways, most people
don't care whether a grammar is ambiguous or not -- if we did,
natural human
BTW, there are some parser generators that handle
ambiguous grammars -- they either support backtracking,
infinite lookahead, or simultaneously parse all possible
derivations. In the case of the simultaneous parse, they
can actually return multiple parse trees and let the
code generator
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Josh Jore wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
Would it be correct for this to print 0? Would it be correct for this
to print 2?
my $n = 0;
aargh =~ /a* { $n++ } aargh/;
print $n;
Yes. ;-)
Wouldn't that print 2 if $n is lexical
I was just thinking that $((1,2,3)) is also the same as [1,2,3],
and shorter than scalar(1,2,3).
I wonder if you can't just use $(1, 2, 3) to the same effect.
I think you can. I was under the impression that the C comma was dying,
so that would have to make a list or err.
Also, I
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Luke Palmer:
I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this:
my flatL = ( *(1a, 2a), *(1b, 2b) );
Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in
my v = ( func() );
that func is called in a scalar context
On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Does that mean that I can't
:
: for $x - $_ {
: for $y - $z {
: print $_, $z\n;
: }
: }
:
: And expect to get different
On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
my v = $( func() );
Would provide scalar context. But then assign it to a list...
In the course of reading that I developed a concern about memory usage
when trying to find the size of arrays. As I understand it the Perl 5
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Anyway, (7) or (3+4) should yield a number, not a list, because
otherwise every math expression will break.
Why can't perl
On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
need to differentiate between a real list and a reference to one.
What context does push impute on its operands?
If
push
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
for (1,(a,b,c),3 { ... }
and
for 1,(a,b,c),3 { ... }
Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In
Hell Does This Expression Mean), is the
On 24 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
push @a: [1,2,3,4];
pushes an array ref onto @a.
push @a: *[1,2,3,4];
pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []).
Remind me which language this is supposed to be, again
=head1 TITLE
Square brackets are the only list constructor
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Sep 2002
Number: 362 (?)
Version: 1
=head1 ABSTRACT
This RFC responds to the fury on perl6-language about the redundancy of
parentheses and brackets
Before people get Itoo far on the regex engine, is there any plan to
implement split buffers; i.e. storing one string in multiple places and
tying them together? Has this already been done?
I think it would be a good idea, as it would make many common operations
faster on large data sets.
[Negative matching]
a generic negative, multi-byte string matching mechanism. Any thoughts?
Am I missing something already present or otherwise obvious?
Maybe I'm misundertanding the question, but I think you want negative
lookahead:
Perl 5: /(.*)(?!union)/
Perl 6: /(.*) !before:
Larry Wall wrote:
[ Stuff about how commas construct lists, not parens ]
Wow, somehow you've convinced me that all the problems I saw before aren't
really there. Well, switch on the light, there's no monsters under the
bed afterall.
: This has the added benefit that there is a significant
sub f(int $a is constrained($a=1,must be positive),
documented(an integer)) {
...
}
I now realize I'm a little fuzzy on the yada-yada-yada operator. What
exactly is it... or what does it do? Is it a statement, an
expression? Could you say
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm wondering whether the single ones could indicate parallel streams.
We had the difficulty of specifying whether the Cfor loop should
terminate on the shorter or the longer stream. We could say that |
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If we use | and as sugar for any() and all(), then their precedence
should probably be the same as || and .
Should they? I had in mind something just above comparisons. That
way:
if $x == 3 || $y ==
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 exceptions behave, a block simply changes the methods
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:24:56 -0700
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Perl, variable names always begin with a special character called
a sigil,
Ahem, funny character. The Camel glossary has no entry for sigil
(though I realize it's common terminology).
Any value may be
Put another way, is there a significant difference between:
eval {
$foo = 1/0;
print Bar;
}
if( $ =~ /^Illegal division by zero/ ) {
... oops ...
}
and
try {
$foo = 1/0;
print Bar;
}
catch {
when /^Illegal
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Luke
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:43:08 -0300
From: Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Perl is my favorite language, and I'm eagerly following Perl 6
development. So I would like to ask this question here. Sorry if I'm
being inconvenient...
Do you think that Lisp macros make
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We're also missing the actual C operators that are guaranteed to return 0 or 1:
$x ? $y # C's $x $y
$x ?| $y # C's $x || $y
$x ?! $y # C's, er, !!$x ^ !!$y
And we need those... why? Wouldn't:
You know, \ and friends as xor is appealing to me.
There's no problem with \\ or \=, so that works. It's got nothing to
do with references, but unary | has nothing to do with anything.
Plus, it's parallel (er, perpendicular) to // as err, being logical
and all.
Just to clarify:
\
What's the plan on having properties, or attributes (depending on how
far we're taking it), on individual characters in a string? I think
it's an essential feature, as Lisp has shown us. If there's an
argument otherwise, I'm all ears.
Luke
From: Angel Faus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:54:09 +0200
All this ones fit more with the concept of mystical analogy hinted
by =~ than with the plain similarity that one would expect from
like
True. Can't say I like, um, like.
Oh, and =~ looks much more intimidating,
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:37:51 -0400
From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12-dev, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
At 11:09 PM -0600 10/20/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
What's
I didn't call the problem unreasonable, I was objecting to its
characterization as an essential feature. It isn't. A useful thing,
definitely, but there are a lot of those. It's hardly essential any
more than, say, a hash that automagically maps to the current
directory's files
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:01:31 -0700
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
Cc: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12-dev,
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/
Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:36:12 +
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
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:36:20 -0800
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
My
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:37:32 +
From: Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:57:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's not a problem with builtins, but what about
sub foo ();
sub prefix:foo ($x);
@a = [foo][1,2,3,4,5];
So how is this interpreted? Such syntactic ambiguity isn't nice.
Should we go with the
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:59:15 +
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In the Re:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:11:00 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:13:28 -0800
From: Ed Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Michael Lazarro wrote:
1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
^[op]
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:07:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:45:16 -0800
From: Erik Steven Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sent-Mail: off
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender-Ip: 152.18.50.63
Organization: Angelfire
Oops. About that op thing, I was wrong. Though there is a case
that does it:
sub bar();
sub postfix:bar($x) returns IO::Handle;
$x = length bar;
If it's possible to have a distinct sub and an operator with the same
name. If not, I believe the distinction is precisely the same as
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 03:08:37 +
From: Andrew Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Fri, Nov 01,
Larry wrote:
I don't much care whether they short-circuit or not. I could argue it
either way. I think it'd be okay if they short-circuit. Anybody who
uses an operator like ? expecting it to force a side effect on the
second expression is nuts. And there's something (though not much)
to
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 22:36:58 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Larry Wall wrote:
Please don't think of Cbit as
y Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:39:59 -0700 (MST)
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2002 17:40:00.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[B38AC4D0:01C281CD]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12,
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:01:34 -0700 (MST)
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2002 18:01:34.0398 (UTC) FILETIME=[B70BCDE0:01C281D0]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12,
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 01:15:05 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Michael Lazzaro writes:
magical whitespace modifier:
_ - When used at the
From: Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 14:44:39 +0200
On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl,
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: 3 Nov 2002 14:58:52 -
From: Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Posted-By: 193.237.84.140
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Agreed: the value of comparing a boolean with anything else is not
particularly sensible in *any* language.
It
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:09:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Something from [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the relative frequency made
I just need a little clarification about yield().
consider this sub:
sub iterate(foo) {
yield for foo;
undef;
}
(Where yield defaults to the topic) Presumably.
a = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
while($_ = iterate a) {
print
}
Will print 12345. Or is that:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:44:39 +
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
So, I was, thinking about the way Common Lisp handles keyword
arguments. It's possible to declare a
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 questions, I'd appreciate it.
1) What do these do?
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:28 -0500
From: Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Julian-Day: 2452586.42675
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
[Recipients list trimmed back to just the list
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:48:50 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
we could make it lazy thus:
sub a_pure_func(Num $n) is lazy returns Num {
return $n ** $n
}
which would cause any invocation of Ca_pure_func to cache
its arguments (probably in a closure)
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:49:14 -0700 (MST)
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:48:50 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:04:16 +
From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And to people in the perl5 know, Memoize is the module that implements this,
hence why people who know of how and what Memoize can do favour that name.
Except that it's not necessarily obvious to everyone else?
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 22:24:20 +
From: Andrew Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Operators
- Precedence
- Superpositional
These are now called Junks (From Junctions)
Iie, these are now called Junctions (From
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 14:43:42 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We can make some guesses based on our own experiences, and they might be
close, except that I think we are a profoundly self-selected group.
There may be some
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:20:58 -0500
From: Joseph F. Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:44:43 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Determine a schema describing the fields/elements of the documentation,
in order for the docs to be databased later sliced in a variety of
ways (beginner
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Angel Faus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: vLex.com
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:03:30 +0100
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
I've written a frist version of the 1.1 - Literal
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 15:22:53 -0600
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What happens with this one:
256:255.255..0 # same as 256:255.255.0.0 ?
# or error?
On the contrary, it's
I deleted the thread for that first doc, but it just occured to me
that it didn't mention the 1_234_567 notation.
Luke
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:01:26 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- converting numbers to strings
- writing a number as a string
(what the rules are for how it will look)
- writing a number as a formatted
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
If so, what is perl going to do about the computationally expensive
entanglement thingy?
$x =
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:34:49 +
From: Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Deborah Ariel Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 09:05:16 +1100 (EST)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Luke wrote:
When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:05:26 +1100 (EST)
From: Timothy S. Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Hi all. I missed out on the original RFC process; it was
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:37:51 +1100 (EST)
From: Timothy S. Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Here's the next part to the Control Structures message I
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:23:00 -0600
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Which Inf is bigger? Inf, or Inf?
You can't know, so it's NaN.
Maybe I'm just wired wrong, but Inf is the same size as Inf (since
they are the same value) To me Inf is a textual representation of
a
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:28:38 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course, a key issue is that, in perl5, the treatment of numeric
literals is not at all the same as the treatment of stringified
numerics. For example:
From: Tanton Gibbs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 15:00:57 -0500
Inf - Inf NaN
I'd expect 0.
I'd expect Inf
Which Inf is bigger? Inf, or Inf?
You can't know, so it's NaN.
Inf * $N Inf
^^^
presumably you meant -Inf here
Why?
Here's the very rough draft of the String = Num document I said I'd
do.
Some of the behavior in here was just what made sense to me, since I
had no definitive answer. If anyone has ideas for more useful
or sensible behavior, please say so.
Oh, and I'm not sure what POD-like conventions we're
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:11:58 -0500
From: Frank Wojcik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 07:58:55PM
From: david nicol [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15 Nov 2002 18:56:35 -0600
I don't know if you haven't been paying attention, or you're
summarizing what's happened. I'll assume the former. Forgive me if
I've misunderstood you.
1: string cat is an old and reliable horsehide drum. I've been
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:39:55 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be *vastly* better thought integrate junctive calls with
the standard threading behaviour.
Of course, there will be a pragma or something to instruct it to
operate serially, yes?
Luke
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:28:59 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've a couple of questions here:
we still have implicit iteration:
for fibs() {
print Now $_ rabbits\n;
}
Really? What if fibs() is a coroutine that returns lists (Fibonacci
lists, no less),
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:51:05 -0800
From: Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Therefore, in base 1, you can only use the digit 0. (Actually, I
think base 1 is a corner case--you only get one digit, but that digit
is 1, so you can represent any number N by making N tally marks.)
Well, if you
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 18:59:58 -0500
From: matt diephouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Damian Conway wrote:
matt diephouse wrote:
$junction = $x | $y | $z;
foo($junction);
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
X-Sent: 19 Nov 2002 02:51:54 GMT
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:51:56 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:29:46 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ken Fox lamented:
Or the circumfix ... operator. Which is the problem here.
This is like playing poker with God.
I hear God prefers dice.
What does the circumfix ... operator do?
It's the ASCII
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:11:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
This might work now, presuming
sub foo (;$_ = $=)
(or whatever) is really a binding, and not an assignment. (That's
another reason why //=
1 - 100 of 1293 matches
Mail list logo
