Andrew Rodland skribis 2005-04-04 22:34 (-0400):
Likewise, slurping is probably best explained as collecting.
I like this. I'd be tempted to suggest scatter / gather, but that's
Gather is taken.
probably a bit opaque to the average reader. How about describing them as
expand / collect for
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:34:13PM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote:
: On Monday 04 April 2005 06:34 pm, Juerd wrote:
: Terrence Brannon skribis 2005-04-04 18:45 (+):
: So, to avoid confusion with the common understanding of flattening in
: Perl, perhaps it should be called spreading or
(Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
(Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
afford to throw a few more convenience functions out there for common
operations like word splitting and whitespace
Shouldn't these be just methods?
I guess not. This is Perl and OO is not mandatory, or even desirable
all the time.
Adriano.
Hi,
Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
What does pick return on hashes? Does it return a random value or a
random pair? (I suppose returning a pair is more useful.)
I'd assume in all cases that pick returns an *alias*, and in the case
of
Larry Wall wrote:
Roles cannot be derived from, so they're always final in that sense.
We should probably consider them closed by default as well, or at least
closed after first use. If a role specifies implementation, it's always
default implementation, so overriding implementation always occurs
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Is typing optional in the sense that it is no syntax error but
: otherwise ignored? To me this is pain but no gain :(
Well, you guys keep ignoring the answer. Let me put it a bit more
mathematically. The
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Roles cannot be derived from, so they're always final in that sense.
: We should probably consider them closed by default as well, or at least
: closed after first use. If a role specifies implementation, it's
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:38:05PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
: What does pick return on hashes? Does it return a random value or a
: random pair? (I suppose returning a pair is more useful.)
:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:36:18AM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: (Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
:
: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
: afford to throw a few more convenience functions
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:21:41AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Plus you really don't want to clutter the Str type with every little
thing you might want to do with a string. foo.open() will probably
work, but only because it doesn't find a Str.open and fails over to
MMD dispatch, which ends up
Juerd wrote:
Thomas Sandlaß skribis 2005-04-04 18:50 (+0200):
In particular what does infix=Scalar of Ref of Ref of Int,Int do?
Depends. What does it mean? :)
Specifically, what is infix, what is =?
Ups, a missing : warps this to a completly different meaning!
Comparing a coderef infix with the
wolverian skribis 2005-04-05 19:31 (+0300):
Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
Yes, . is supertight.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
Hi,
Larry Wall wrote:
: Same for hashes:
[...]
: my %hash = (a = 1, b = 2),
: my $pair := %hash.pick;
: $pair = ...; # %hash changed
I'm not sure that works. We don't quite have pairs as first class
containers. Binding would try to use a pair as a named argument, and
would fail
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
That depends on whether you mean
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).words
or
~(@array.words)
It happens to mean the latter. A . binds tighter than a symbolic
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Ups, a missing : warps this to a completly different meaning!
: Comparing a coderef infix with the comparison operator =
: to the word list 'Scalar of Ref of Ref of Int,Int'.
:
: I tried to ask what infix:=Scalar of Ref of Ref of
Perl 6 Language
ceil and floor
Ingo Blechschmidt wondered if ceil and floor would be in the core.
Warnock applies... Although Unicode operators would let me define
circumfix \lfloor \rfloor (although I only know how to make those
symbols in tex...). Hmmm... using tex to right
17 matches
Mail list logo
