Luke Palmer wrote about:
=head1 Perl 6 and Set Theory
This document will introduce a new way of thinking about some Perl 6
constructs. In addition, it proposes some minor changes that would
help this way of thinking be more consistent. These changes may make
Perl 6 a better language in
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:10:30 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are actually four types of junction:
conjunction: all(@elements)
disjunction: any(@elements)
abjunction:one(@elements)
injunction: none(@elements)
Oh yeah...
represent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
Of course, as long as you can call Cpart without explicitly loading
a module, it's merely a philosophical distinction as to whether
Cpart is core or not.
Well, no; it's an implementation distinction too. Non-core methods
1) don't mean anything
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:43 +, Brad Hughes wrote:
In any case, the choice of default base index is less important for Perl than
for other languages given how seldom arrays in Perl are accessed by index as
opposed to manipulated by push, pop, for $x (@array) loops and such.
I slice a lot
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:28:24AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
We could certainly do that. But let's call it Cpart.
I usually just lurk here, but I just had to pipe in. :) I'm not sure the
meaning of the name Cpart would be obvious to someone who hadn't seen
it before. I keep thinking Csift
Damian Conway wrote:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)? The
array refs in @parts are not flattened though. Is it
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I keep thinking Csift would be nice, or maybe
Cdiscrim. Just a thought...
Csift is quite good. Though I still like Cpart best.
Ooh, I like Csift best. Cpart is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with?
David Wheeler wrote:
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Ian Remmler decloaked and wrote:
I keep thinking Csift would be nice ...
Csift is quite good. Though I still like Cpart best.
Ooh, I like Csift best.
I dislike Csift cos it's a small typo
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 10:20 AM, Smylers wrote:
I dislike Csift cos it's a small typo away from Cshift.
Yes, but I would expect to be a compile-time error, since the
signatures are different. The same can't be said for r?index.
David
--
David Wheeler
Ken Fox asked:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)?
Yes.
The array refs in @parts are not flattened
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 06:00:40 +0100
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Payrard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Damian:
so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
(@foo, @bar) :=
part [/foo/, /bar/],
sort { $^b = $^a }
Note: this is back on-list.
From: Me [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:27:55 -0600
[regarding - as a left-to-right pipe-like operator]
Please do. As in, please point out on list that
'-' is already established as a left-to-right
flow/assignment operator so why not consider
12 matches
Mail list logo
