Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
> perl6 operator precedence
>
>leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
>left. and unary .
>nonassoc++ --
>leftis but
Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
'_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
anyone come up with a use for binary '?' yet?
Joe Gottman
> - Ori
I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
similar to the one in perlop.pod.
This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
for : (adverb) or 'is' and 'but' are quite right.
perl6 opera
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
> makes it hard to predict what will happen, because new operators will have
> to be able to control what they do with their operands, and because new
> types of "array-like" opera
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Is that sufficiently vague?
Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
broad side of that semantic barn...
Different operators doing different things sounds awful to me, because it
makes it hard to predict what will happen,
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks!
> > >
> > > I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> > > the results. Perhaps this is jus
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 07:03:10AM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Hi folks!
> >
> > I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> > the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
> > implementation at the momen
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of
> the results. Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the
> implementation at the moment.
Yes. I personally think it makes more sense, in a language that allows
in
Hi folks!
I did some tests with the new for loop and don't understand some of the results.
Perhaps this is just due to some warts in the implementation at the moment.
When looping over two lists of different length, the shorter stream shall give undefs,
when it has come to the end of the list,
