On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:14:54AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
:
: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
: > > This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
: > > &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
: >
: > This reminds m
Larry Wall writes:
> If you write:
>
> multi method add( $self: Foo $foo, Bar $bar );
>
> then there are multiple add methods in the current class. Note the
> invocant is not optional in this case. Also, there's an implied
> second colon after $bar, indicating the end of the arguments to be
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Lang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So the following three declarations cover very similar (but not quite
> identical) things:
>
> multi sub call ($a: $b) {...}
> submethod invoke ($a: $b) {...}
> method check ($a: $b) {...}
>
> All three of these use mu
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Hastings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: [perl] RE: s/// in string context should return the string
> As a "Bvalue" where possible, so they can cascade and nest.
Exc
I think most everyone is missing the new simplicity of the current
conception of "multi". It's now completely orthogonal to scoping
issues. It merely says, "I'm putting multiple names into a spot
that would ordinarily demand a unique name."
In other words, what a name means in a given scope is a
Jonathan Lang wrote:
multi sub call ($a, $b: $c) {...}
multi submethod invoke ($a, $b: $c) {...}
multi method check ($a, $b: $c) {...}
Why do we suddenly need to append the "multi" keyword to "submethod" and
"method"?
So the compiler knows we really did mean for that (sub)method to be multip
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:44 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
And also if @array_of_random_values contains 'ok'.
D'oh! See Damian's solution, then. ;-)
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://w
David Wheeler wrote:
Isn't that just:
for @array_of_random_values_and_types, 'ok' -> $t {
when 'ok' { yada(); last }
last unless some_sort_of_test($t);
}
IOW, the topic is only 'ok' when all of the items in the array have been
processed
Unless, of course, the string 'ok'
David Wheeler wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types -> $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types -> $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideef
Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types -> $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
given @array_
Damian Conway wrote:
Seiler Thomas wrote:
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Jonathan Lang writes:
> > Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > Well, "multi" is no longer a declarator in its own right, but rather
> > > a modifier. Synopsis & Exegesis 6 show this.
> >
> > I don't know about Exegesis 6,
>
> Then you should probably read it. It is the most recent o
Seiler Thomas wrote:
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
for 0..6, 'ok' -> $
Damian Conway wrote:
> push @moves, [$i, $j];
> for 0..6 -> $t {
> if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
> pop @moves;
> last;
> }
> }
>
>
Indeed, an elegant way around the problem.
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:34 PM
> > To: Language List
> > Subject: RE: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> >
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:34 PM
> To: Language List
> Subject: RE: Control flow variables
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > This seems excessive, but easily discarded during optimization.
Luke Palmer wrote:
My C/C typo may
have misled you, but the original example pushed only if *none* of them
passed the condition.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.
So you want:
push @moves, [$i, $j];
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
pop @moves;
Austin Hastings writes:
> > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Austin Hastings writes:
> > > > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > Would that then imply that
> > > >
> > > > sub blah {
> > > >... # 1
> > > >return if $a;
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> This seems excessive, but easily discarded during optimization. On the other
> hand, I don't trust the "last statement evaluated" behavior for loops, since
> the optimizer could very well do surprising things to loop statements.
> (Likewise, however, f
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:11 PM
> To: Austin Hastings
> Cc: Michael Lazzaro; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:02 PM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Luke Palmer started a discussion:
>
>
> > I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
> >
Damian Conway writes:
> Luke Palmer started a discussion:
>
>
> >I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
> >condition, and do something only if the condition was never true.
> >$is_ok is a control flow variable, something I like to minimize. Now,
> >there are other way
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, just to make sure, these two lines are both valid, but do completely
different things:
return if $a;
Means:
if ($a) { return }
return if $a { $a }
Means:
if ($a) { return $a } else { return undef }
Damian
Luke Palmer started a discussion:
I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
condition, and do something only if the condition was never true.
$is_ok is a control flow variable, something I like to minimize. Now,
there are other ways to do this:
if (0..6 ==> grep -> $
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
... # 3
}
...would return $a if $a was true, and fall through to (3) if it was
false?
It sure should, provided there were a correct context waiting, which
would
quite nicel
Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wr
Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Control flow variables
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wr
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Given that we've introduced the conce
As a "Bvalue" where possible, so they can cascade and nest.
=Austin
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephane Payrard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: s/// in string context should return the string
>
>
> s/// in strin
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
Given that we've introduced the concept of "if" having a return status:
my $result = if ($a) { $a } else { $b };
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
...
OOPS, totally miss-read your code, ignore my first part of my last
message.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luke Palmer wrote:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_
s/// in string context should return the string after substituion.
It seems obvious to me but I mention it because I can't find it
in the apocalypses.
--
stef
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: Austin Hastings
> Cc: Language List
> Subject: Re: Control flow variables
>
>
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > I was reading the most recent articl
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
> > &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
>
> This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
>
> $cleanup = b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
> &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
$cleanup = bless {}, class {
method DESTROY { ... }
}
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> > > Luke Palmer:
> > > > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
> > Will be able to.
>
> I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
> is sufficiently advanced to
Austin Hastings writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> > reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
> > Here's the code, Perl6ized:
> >
> > ... ;
> > my $is_ok = 1;
> > for 0..6 -> $t {
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Control flow variables
>
>
> I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> reminded me of something I see rather often i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> > Luke Palmer:
> > > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
> Will be able to.
I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
is sufficiently advanced to massively clone Larry...
--
Sometimes it's better n
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Luke Palmer:
> > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
>
> Bah, should be able to!
Will be able to.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalsk
Luke Palmer:
> Well... it is and isn't. At first sight, it makes the language look
> huge, the parser complex, a lot of syntax to master, etc. It also seems
> to me that there is little discrimination when adding new syntax.
Correct.
> But I've come to look at it another way. Perl 6 is doing
Simon Cozens writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> > reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
>
> The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
> way to writ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
way to write it, but didn't see one.
> So,
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 -> $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) > 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
Jonathan Lang writes:
> My apologies for the break in the chain of responses; I lost your reply
> before I could reply to it, and had to retrieve it from the list archives.
>
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Well, "multi" is no longer a declarator in its own right, but rather a
> > modifier. Synopsis
47 matches
Mail list logo
