> And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to æ?? and æ??
> in all cases.
lol I get the idea, but I foresee these unicode bits as becoming an
occasional sharp spot in my metaphorical seat of consciousness. :)
I am not seeing unicode.
__
Do you Y
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> > Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> > And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator
> > synopsis as of 3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym
> > for
On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 12:37 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Michael Lazzaro writes:
There were also vaguely threatening proposals to have <> and
>>op<<
do slightly different things. I assume that is also dead, and that
<> is (typically) a syntax error.
Ack. No, slightly different things would
Luke Palmer writes:
> And as far as I know, << and >> are exactly equivalent to æ and æ in all
> cases.
By which I mean  and Â, of course. :-/
(mutt is kind of a pain in this area)
Luke
Ã
Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
> >Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
> >And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as
> >of
> >3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry,
> >n
On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 01:05 PM, Hodges, Paul wrote:
Didn't know "is" would do that. Good to know!
And in my meager defense, I did reference MikeL's operator synopsis as
of
3/25/03, which said ^[op] might be a synonym for <<>> or >><< (Sorry,
no
fancy chars here. :)
Hey, that was *March*
The Perl 6 summary for the week ending 20031130
Welcome back to the weekly Perl 6 Summary, which I'm hoping to keep on a
weekly cycle for the foreseeable future.
It's been a relatively low volume week this week, I'm assuming that
Thanksgiving had something to do with it (I hope tho
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday, November 26, 2003, at 12:29 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
>> If you contrast it with an explicit try block, sure, it looks
>> better. But
>> that's not what I compare it with. I compare it with Perl 5's:
>>
>> $opus.write_to_file($file) or
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hodges, Paul writes:
> >
> > sub setvals ($o, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
> > $o but= $_;
> > $o.$_ = true;
> > }
>
> Y'all seem to be missing a C somewhere :-)
>
> sub setvals ($o, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
> $o bu
