On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
(B: Juerd wrote:
(B: According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English
(B: speakers and 600 million people who have English as a second language.
(B: Should the remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing
I found where Damain explains the rule as basically replicate dimensions,
extend lengths, using an identity value when extending the length.
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg08304.html
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
IIRC, it's
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:58:29PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
:
: We blitzed a discussion on #perl 3 minutes ago, reaching the
: conclusion that negated subscripts are cool.
:
: So i was thinking:
:
: subscripts are objects.
I'm all in favor of powerful constructs, but we need to be *really*
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-14 10:11 (-0700):
Interestingly, if .{} defaulted to smart matching, ordinary .{'foo'}
would essentially fall out of the samantics of find me all the keys
that smartmatch foo, which is only one of them, presuming a hash
that guarantees uniqueness. One could view .{}
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:08:21AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: Good point. Another one is: how does the meta_operator determine the
: identity value for user-defined operators?
:
: (1,2,3,4,5) my_infix_op (3,2,4)
:
: Maybe we should say that the excess length is simply copied unchanged.
:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: So, what's the important downside of all this?
The fact that smartmatching a list doesn't slice, but is defined to
be array equality with smartmatch of each element in order:
if @array ~~ (1,2,3,many) { say array can count }
Larry
In writing some character class translation, I realized that
-[a-z]
and its ilk are rather hard to read because of the two hyphens
that mean different things. We can't use ![a-z] because that's a
0-width lookahead. Given that we're trying to get rid of special
exceptions, and - in
Larry Wall wrote:
(B Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
(B defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
(B
(BInteresting, I hadn't considered that.
(B
(BHaving a quick browse through some of the discussions about macros, many
(Bof the macros I
At 5:21 PM -0700 4/14/05, Larry Wall wrote:
In writing some character class translation, I realized that
-[a-z]
and its ilk are rather hard to read because of the two hyphens
that mean different things. We can't use ![a-z] because that's a
0-width lookahead. Given that we're trying to get
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Given that we're trying to get rid of special
exceptions, and - in character classes is weird, and we already
use .. for ranges everywhere else, and nobody is going to put a
repeated character into a character class, I'm wondering if
On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
So, [a.z] matches a, ., and z,
while [a..z] matches characters a through z inclusive.
I was going to say that that was inconsistent, but since you never need
to repeat a letter in a character class, well, I guess it isn't. But
the
11 matches
Mail list logo
