The 'DEVELOPING' file accidentally made its way into the MANIFEST, but
doesn't actually exist in the tarball. It's not a problem, as you can
delete the appropriate line in the MANIFEST and continue, but given the
large file size I thought I should alert you. 0.0.8.1 is being uploaded
at the moment
Ooo I need your code, babe
Guess you know it's true
Hope you need this build babe
Just like I need you
-- Apologies to John Lennon
(alternate codename: Octarine)
News collected from Piers Cawley's excellent summaries:
Working Perl6 REs
Multidimensional keyed access
JIT for the ARM
Lexical scope
> "DW" == David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DW> On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 05:30 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Sure. But the right solution is to permanently eliminate the
>> sesquipedalian
>> name (so you don't have to retype it for every single typed variable):
>>
> And, furthermore, that you could easily define special semantics
> for void-context constructor calls via undef'd but typed variables,
> so that you could just write:
>
> (my Date $date).new('June 25, 2002');
>
> and have the interpreter autovivify the object.
That's pretty close to wha
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 05:30 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> Sure. But the right solution is to permanently eliminate the
> sesquipedalian
> name (so you don't have to retype it for every single typed variable):
>
> class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
Oh, that's nice. As
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
>> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
>>
>> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a property that marks
>> its keys as being objects, not
The thing I'd like to do right now is turn on :w
for all rules. A Fortran grammar might want to turn
on :i for all rules.
Maybe add modifiers to the grammar declaration?
grammar Fortran :i { ... }
It would also be convenient to allow the :w
modifier to have lexically scoped behavior so a
gra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
>
> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a property that marks
> its keys as being objects, not strings:
>
> my %hash is keyed(REF);
>
> And, even if that's the d
David Wheeler wrote:
> Yes, but this:
>
>my Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh $date is now {.init 'June 25,
> 2002' };
>
> Is shorter than this:
>
> my Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh $date =
>Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh.new( 'June 25, 2002' );
>
> It's not the short package nam
Uri Guttman wrote:
> but what simon was saying (and i agree) is the the pair IS a single
> item. it becomes the key and its value is 'scalars'.
No. If it's a PAIR, then its key is the key and its value is the value.
> hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
Correct.
10 matches
Mail list logo