Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 19:33:33 -0400
: From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: what's new continued
:
: Comments (otherwise you have things pretty much
Ariel Scolnicov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
will apply to any method? To any sub? Can I call a sub 17 times by
saying
(undef) x 17 = foo(1,2,3);
That should be
(undef) x 17 = ^foo(1,2,3);
of course. Sorry.
[...]
--
Ariel Scolnicov
On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 11:19, Andy Wardley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:20:35PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm pretty sure the iterators they build are just closures with named
arguments, and behave as any other closure would behave.
Not quite. Ruby iterators expect a block. This
On 4 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 8:32 AM +0100 7/3/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For true scariness, consider:
$sub.current_continuation($new_continuation);
Some days you really, really scare me Piers...
Heh. Scary can be
On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
*$min..$max
is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier you write
*$min..$max?
to get minimal matching.
I would
At 8:29 AM -0700 7/4/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
Sick. Anyways, I think it seems like a more natural way to do things than
traditional call/cc. $block.continuation reads as where do I go after
$block?; $block.continuation($foo) as after executing $block, proceed
on to $foo; (call/cc func) as call
On Thursday 04 July 2002 11:07 am, Ashley Winters wrote:
I would expect /a*1..2?/ to mean /[a*1..2]?/ just looking at it. How
can ? ever mean non-greedy unless it follows a metachar [*+?]?
Perhaps I can respond to my own question. In /.+?/ . is an assertion, + is an
assertion, and ? is a
On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: On Thursday 04 July 2002 10:47 am, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Thu, 4 Jul 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
: So I'd guess that we just don't talk about :-1, but rather say that
:
: *$min..$max
:
: is naturally greedy, and as with any quantifier you
On 4 Jul 2002, Erik [ISO-8859-1] Bågfors wrote:
: On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 11:19, Andy Wardley wrote:
: I personally believe this approach is flawed, especially considering the fact
: that there is no way (that I know of) to force block parameters to be truly
: lexically scoped or temporary
