On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 04:40:23PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:00:38PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
my $n;
while $n++ then @accum $total {
...
}
(Where I got in trouble for using Cand and never executing anything :-)
To me, it's
Damian Conway writes:
Perhaps this is yet another argument for insisting on:
while do {$n++; $foo $bar}
instead.
Yes please! Is anybody here a fan of the C comma? I don't think I've
ever used it -- well, not intentionally, anyway -- but these are the
situations where I've spotted
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luke Palmer:
So modules that introduce new concepts into the language can add new
syntax for them without working with (ugh) a source filter. And some of
these new syntaxes in the core language will actually be in standard
modules, if they're not
Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 08:23:30PM +, Smylers wrote:
This, however, is irritating:
my @new = map { s:e/$pattern/$replacement/; $_ } @old;
I forget the C; $_ far more often than I like to admit and end up with
an array of integers
On 2003-11-25 at 18:17:04, Piers Cawley wrote:
aString replace: aPattern with: aString.
aString replaceAll: aPattern with: aString.
Stop! Stop that at once! No small talk; we're here for
serious discussions!
:)
Except... the second argument isn't strictly a string because it's
Piers Cawley writes:
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But it isn't, and I don't know why it isn't, and so we end up
spending loads of time discussing things that can be punted out to
modules. Designing Perl 6 is hard enough; let's not try to fill
CP6AN at the same time.
But the
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-11-25 at 18:17:04, Piers Cawley wrote:
aString replace: aPattern with: aString.
aString replaceAll: aPattern with: aString.
Stop! Stop that at once! No small talk; we're here for
serious discussions!
:)
Except... the second
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:46:39PM -0700, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
or maybe throw some latin in there
while $n++ et @accum $total { ... }
while $n++ cum @accum $total { ... } # maybe?
I think ac is the latin conjunction you
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Adam Turoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:03:19PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Schwern observed:
Perhaps this is yet another argument for insisting on:
while do {$n++; $foo $bar}
Adam Turoff wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Perhaps this is yet another argument for insisting on:
while do {$n++; $foo $bar}
instead.
That looks like syntactic sugar for
while (do) {$n++; $foo $bar}
do is not merely prototyped, but a builtin. With a mandatory {}
10 matches
Mail list logo
