* Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08 Jul 2002 10:27]:
[...]
given my Doberman $sis is female = .dog[0] but pregnant - $mother {
for my Doberman @puppies = new Doberman x $mother.littersize
I'd have thought you'd need:
for my Doberman @puppies = (new Doberman) x
For anyone interested,
http://fibonaci.babylonia.flatirons.org/perl6.vim
contains a fairly complete (yet buggy, I'm sure) vim highlighting file for
Perl 6. I sure hope I didn't already post this :(... if so, sorry.
And definitely tell me where there's bugs or when I'm missing
A short time ago, in a nearby thread, Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps we should just explain continuations in terms of time travel.
Funny. I wrote a message to this effect the other night, but decided
not to send it (too tired to decide if I was talking sense or nonsense).
I was about to propose
On 8 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
caller with no args is the same as Ccaller(1) (for certain values of
'the same as'), caller(0) already returns the current execution
context.
You're right. I stand corrected.
If you can set a block's continuation at runtime, I think you should be
Okay, for those of you following along at home, here's a quick
rundown of what a continuation is, and how it works. (This is made
phenomenally easier by the fact that perl has continations--try
explaining this to someone used to allocating local variables on the
system stack and get ready for
At 2:43 PM +0100 7/8/02, Andy Wardley wrote:
A short time ago, in a nearby thread, Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps we should just explain continuations in terms of time travel.
Funny. I wrote a message to this effect the other night, but decided
not to send it (too tired to decide if I was talking
At 9:48 AM +0100 7/8/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sets you up for very scary action at a distance. Essentially
you're proposing Ccome_from BLOCK
Well, sure. How else are we going to handle the INTERCAL front-end? ;-P
--
Dan
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Pretty simple. (For illustrative purposes) To do that with
continuations, it'd look like:
$cont = take_continuation();
if ($foo) {
$foo--;
invoke($cont);
}
take_continuation() returns a continuation for the current point
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:54:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Pretty simple. (For illustrative purposes) To do that with
continuations, it'd look like:
$cont = take_continuation();
if ($foo) {
$foo--;
invoke($cont);
}
take_continuation() returns a continuation for
At 04:54 PM 7/8/02 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
A continuation is a sort of super-closure. Like a closure it captures
its lexical variables, so every time you use it, you're referring to
the same set of variables, which live on until the continuation's
destroyed. This works because the variables
At 3:01 PM -0700 7/8/02, Peter Scott wrote:
At 04:54 PM 7/8/02 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
A continuation is a sort of super-closure. Like a closure it
captures its lexical variables, so every time you use it, you're
referring to the same set of variables, which live on until the
continuation's
At 10:24 PM +0100 7/8/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 04:54:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Pretty simple. (For illustrative purposes) To do that with
continuations, it'd look like:
$cont = take_continuation();
if ($foo) {
$foo--;
invoke($cont);
Thus it was written in the epistle of Peter Scott,
So if you could serialize a continuation, you could freeze your program
state to disk and restore it later? Cool, makes for easy checkpoint/restarts.
I think that that would be true only if *all* data was maintained in those
scratchpads
13 matches
Mail list logo
