The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021110
Far off in distant Newark a figure, muttering something about `Leon
Brocard', shambles across a railway bridge and makes its way into a
waiting room. Time passes. After a while, a train arrives and the figure
shambles on board, takes
Me writes:
Sorta. To quote an excellent summary:
Topic is $_.
is $_ always lexical variable.
Yes.
Or I can have $MyPackage::_ ?
You can copy or alias any value.
so if I understand correctly ,
Every topicalizer defines a topicalizer scope in
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 21:11:36 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Friday, November 8, 2002, at 07:03 AM, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
I still prefer cached, which sounds less lingo-ish than memoized
but reads better than same (Same as what?).
Insert
Timothy S. Nelson writes:
Hi all. I hope this hasn't been discussed before. I Googled for
perl6 meta-operators and found nothing; likewise practically
nothing searching the perl6-language archive for meta-operators.
Question: are there any plans to have user-defined
Piers Cawley writes:
FMTWYENTK about :=
Bravely declining to expand the acronym in his subject, arcardi posted a
summary of his current understanding of the behavior of :=, the
its far more then what you ever need to know
and after Damian Conway answer it becomes JEOWYNTK -
On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 11:48:06PM -0600, Me wrote:
: Are placeholders only usable with anonymous
: subs, or named subs too?
Placeholders are not intended for use with named subs, since named
subs have a way of naming their parameters in a more readable fashion.
However, it may well fall out that
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:11:32PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: so if I understand correctly ,
:
: Every topicalizer defines a topicalizer scope in which there is
: implicit declaration
:
: my $_ ;
:
: and then lexical $_ ( implicitely ) is bound to ( or assigned to )
: whatever it
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:35:00PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: What you want are conversion-to-(num|str|bool) methods:
:
: sub a_pure_func(Num $n) returns Num {
: class is Num {
: has Num $cache;
: sub value { $n * $n }
: method
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:03:22PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
: Hang on, couldn't you rewrite things to not use the cache?
:
: class is $class {
: sub value { func(*args) }
: method operator:+ ($self is rw:) { +($self = value) }
: method operator:~ ($self is rw:) { ~($self =
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 =
Apologies for raising the dead (horse)
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:27:51PM -0600, Me wrote:
Damian:
[it will be passed to about 5% of subs,
regardless of whether the context is your
10 line scripts or my large modules]
If the syntax for passing it to a sub
remains as verbose as it
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?
Luke wrote:
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
[...]
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
Supercomma!
[snip]
Larry then confessed that he was thinking of changing the declaration of
parallel for loops from:
for @a ; @b ; @c - $a ; $b ; $c {...}
to something like:
for parallel(@a, @b, @c) - $a, $b, $c {...}
Assuming that semicolon is no longer going to
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
Luke wrote:
$foo = 1 | 2 | 4
print $foo;
# Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we still
want from junctions?
Perhaps the above should just print JUNCTION(0x1234)
access caller's topic is an unrestricted
licence to commit action at a distance.
Right.
Perhaps:
o There's a property that controls what subs
can do with a lexical variable. I'll call
it Yours.
o By default, in the main package, topics are
set to Yours(rw); other lexicals are set
Larry Wall writes:
Correct, $_ is always lexical. But...
: or * will it be implicitely my $_ -- class/package lexical
There's no such thing as a class/package lexical. I think you
mean file-scoped lexical here.
ooo, now I understand : *scope* is orthogonal concept to
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:34:49PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
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?
It's the difference
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 04:28:17AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: : will it be an error to declare it as our $_ ;
:
: No, in this case, $_ is still considered a lexical, but it just happens
: to be aliased to a variable in the current package.
:
:
: which variable ? it seems
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
