Sam Vilain wrote:
I've changed examples/sendmoremoney.p6 in the pugs distribution to use
junctions correctly to demonstrate that they *can* be used to solve these
sorts of problems, and that it is just a matter of semantics and writing
code correctly.
However, poor semantics can make the task of wr
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I were to need a different policy for a given method .bar, I would
likely create something called .bar much like your "run_random_bar",
which then dispatches amongst methods I name something like ._bar .
I see some detractions t
Larry Wall skribis 2005-03-11 8:45 (-0800):
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
> : Int @i;
> : Num @n = @i; # type error?
> I think the naive user is going to expect that to work, and I also
> suspect the naive user is right to expect it, because it makes sense.
> Th
Larry Wall writes:
> There's no doubt that the QM view of extended entanglement is very
> useful. After all, that's what the whole universe runs on. But most
> mortals will want the classical view to be the default, so we'll
> require some kind of explicit markup or pragma if you want to extend
>
There's no doubt that the QM view of extended entanglement is very
useful. After all, that's what the whole universe runs on. But most
mortals will want the classical view to be the default, so we'll
require some kind of explicit markup or pragma if you want to extend
entanglement further out tha
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:58:13PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Int @i;
: Num @n = @i; # type error?
I think the naive user is going to expect that to work, and I also
suspect the naive user is right to expect it, because it makes sense.
This may be one of those areas where we can successfully h
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I were to need a different policy for a given method .bar, I would
> likely create something called .bar much like your "run_random_bar",
> which then dispatches amongst methods I name something like ._bar .
> I see some detractions to this approach:
> 1)
HaloO David,
you wrote:
I appreciate you attempting to explain this, but it remains clear as
mud, at least to me. Could you please try again, using very short,
very non-technical words and not assuming a mathematical or
scientific background on the part of your reader?
Ok, second attempt!
The <: i
Doug McNutt wrote:
A word of caution:
Just as in "vector operators" had their names changed to pacify the
> mathematicians - thank you - there is a conflict in terms. Covariant and
> contravariant tensors are the meat of Einstein's formulation of relativity.
> It all has to do with transformation
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Ok. If you'd really need such random dispatch, it could be done like
this, when I interpret A12 correctly:
sub run_random_bar($x) {
my @meths = WALKMETH($x, :method('bar'));
my $meth = @meths[rand(@meths.elems)];
$meth($x);
}
or even with
my sub bar($x) {...} #
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well
if 10 < $j < 1 { ... }
if 10 < $j { if $j < 1 { ... }}
Could easily wind up with the same opcodes.
No. In the first case $j is evaluated just once. In the second case it's
evaluated twice.
You're right. I just di
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. If you'd really need such random dispatch, it could be done like
this, when I interpret A12 correctly:
sub run_random_bar($x) {
my @meths = WALKMETH($x, :method('bar'));
my $meth = @meths[rand(@meths.elems)];
$meth($x);
}
or even with
my sub bar($x) {...}
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:53:11 +0100
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems to me that there are several advantages to making a group of
> multi with the same short name a single object, of type
> MultiSub|MultiMethod, which int
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well
> if 10 < $j < 1 { ... }
> if 10 < $j { if $j < 1 { ... }}
> Could easily wind up with the same opcodes.
No. In the first case $j is evaluated just once. In the second case it's
evaluated twice.
leo
Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>>Discussion seems to have went off into esoteric cases of locally
>>overriden dispatcher policies and what not.
> I don't think it's as esoteric as you might think. Consider:
> package Foo;
> use MMD::Random;
> our &bar
Bob Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>1) is there a MultiSub object with one short name that holds all
>possible long names (and function references)?
>If yes, who is creating it: the Perl6 compiler emits code to do so or
>it's up to
16 matches
Mail list logo
