On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:08:32PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
Here's another quick question: In S03 zip() is used like this:
for zip(@names, @codes) - $name, $zip { ... }
But in S04 it becomes:
for zip(@a;@b) - $a, $b { ... }
Why semicolon? Is it a special form? Or am I
(I've just finished the pretty printing part in Pugs, so I'll use actual
command line transcripts below. The leading ? does not denote boolean
context -- it's just telling pugs to do a big-step evaluation. Also,
boolean literals are written in their Scheme forms.)
In S06, the meaning of
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:33:25PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
With the note that b must be evaluated at most once. However, if
taken literally, it gives this rather weird result:
pugs ? 2 (0 | 3) 4
(#t|#t)
Surely you can do better than that for counterintuitive? :-)
4 (0 | 6)
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 12:38:57PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Surely you can do better than that for counterintuitive? :-)
4 (0 | 6) 2
pugs ? 4 (0 | 6) 2
(#t|#f)
Why is it so? Because:
4 (0 | 6) and (0 | 6) 2
(4 0 | 4 6) and (0 | 6) 2 # local
(Again, this is really a language question. Sorry for the hopefully
digestible use of internal symbols.)
Pugs currently has two numeric types:
VInt - Arbitary sized integer
VNum - Double-precision point number with NaN and Inf support.
Division is done like this:
pugs ? 1 / 3
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
#t and (0 | 6) 2 # reduction in boolean context(!)
Why is it allowed to do this?
Because and forces boolean context to determine whether it
short-circuits or not. However, I should've make it clear that
if
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:43:10PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 12:38:57PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Surely you can do better than that for counterintuitive? :-)
4 (0 | 6) 2
pugs ? 4 (0 | 6) 2
(#t|#f)
Why is it so? Because:
4 (0 | 6)
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:04:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
#t and (0 | 6) 2 # reduction in boolean context(!)
Why is it allowed to do this?
Because and forces boolean context to determine whether
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:08:32PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 04:44:41AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: * What is the value of a reference in any of the scalar contexts?
:
: Currently I'm blindly dereferencing it.
:
: It seems that I got four out of five correct;
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 04:30:58PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: So it turns out that A03 says that semicolons within brackets defaults
: to a list-of-list builder. Curiously, it is missing from S03, and the
: behaviour is not documented in detail.
That's because it's still a bit hand-wavey.
:
This probably goes against everything a shell based platform wants, but
would it be possible to give the program a sub-like signature?
I ask this after another painful session of forgetting how things
work, reading Getopt::Long's documentation.
signature (
Rule $pattern,
Juerd wrote:
This probably goes against everything a shell based platform wants, but
would it be possible to give the program a sub-like signature?
I ask this after another painful session of forgetting how things
work, reading Getopt::Long's documentation.
signature (
Rule $pattern,
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
This probably goes against everything a shell based platform wants,
but would it be possible to give the program a sub-like signature?
I like that idea very much, but...
signature (
Rule $pattern,
bool +$help:short('h'),
Int +$verbose
Matthew Walton skribis 2005-02-05 16:20 (+):
Would this actually be any better than the interface provided by
Getopt::Long?
I'm not sure if it's *better*. I personally find it easier to read and
much easier to remember.
It would reduce the number of mini languages needed. Passing
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-02-05 17:19 (+0100):
...this seems a bit ugly to me.
The signature part, or the signature itself? Because you'll encounter
lists like this all over Perl 6 code anyway...
What do you say about that:
use Getopt::Auto;
run main;
sub main (
Rule $pattern,
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-02-05 17:19 (+0100):
...this seems a bit ugly to me.
The signature part, or the signature itself? Because you'll
encounter lists like this all over Perl 6 code anyway...
I refered to the way the signature is specified, not the signature
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 06:52:49AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, I believe I said somewhere that references are no longer always true
in Perl 6. So perhaps it's not an exception after all. We're trying
to get rid of as many useless exceptions as possible in Perl 6, after all.
Yes, the
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 06:56:00AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, unless it returns [[1],[2],[3]] instead. (What you have written is
context dependent.)
Yup. Thanks!
Oh, by the way, may I use the infix:! operator for creating none()
junctions? I was writing pretty-printing code for junction
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:39:26PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:04:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
#t and (0 | 6) 2 # reduction in boolean
context(!)
Why is it
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 02:30:21AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:39:26PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 10:04:02PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:52:05PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
#t and (0 | 6)
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 06:35:55PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If junctions are sets, and so a|b is identical to b|a, then isn't it wrong
for any implementation of junctions to use any short-circuiting logic in
its implementation, because if it did, then any active data (such as tied
things
NC == Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NC If junctions are sets, and so a|b is identical to b|a, then isn't
NC it wrong for any implementation of junctions to use any
NC short-circuiting logic in its implementation, because if it did,
NC then any active data (such as tied things
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-02-05 18:52 (+0100):
signature(...) looks like a function/sub call, while it isn't one
really.
Macros can do this to a language :)
macro signature is parsed /Perl::Signature;/ { ... }
Maybe it should be possible to create Signature objects without
creating
Hi Juerd,
[Quoting Juerd, on February 5 2005, 16:57, in CLI signature?]
signature (
Rule $pattern,
bool +$help:short('h'),
Int +$verbose :short('v'),
Str [EMAIL PROTECTED] = -
);
The actual parsing still has to happen 'somewhere else', exactly
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 04:09:03 +0800, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
...
Let's take the first one first, because it is what S06 seems to imply,
although it is against Perl5's tie() intuition:
my @carton is Scalar; # assuming this is the default
Now @carton implements the
Alexey Trofimenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
my $var = test;
my @arr := $var;
error? or maybe it would be the same weirdness, like in former example? or
maybe it's a [test]?
The := operator uses the same rules as parameter passing. So, what do
you think this does?
sub foo(@arr)
26 matches
Mail list logo
