On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-2] BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
I'm just wondering, if the following would be possible with Perl 6 or not?
XML
$a=elemselemContent #1/elemelemContent #2/elem/elems;
[snip]
The ideas coming from Comega, the next version of CSharp(?). Here's an intro
about it:
Some time ago
Are the -X functions still going to be there? I definitely hope so!
However, to come to the actual question, it has happened to me to have to
do, in perl5 that is:
perl -lne 's/^//;s/$//;print if -e'
or (less often)
perl -lne '$o=$_;s/^//;s/$//;print $o if -e'
Ok: no much harm done (to my
Chip Salzenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to Michael G Schwern:
In the same way that we have open() not fopen, fdopen, freopen... we
can choose the safest and most sensible technique for determining
the cwd and use that.
And there is more than one open. Perl does have
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:32:41PM +0800, fayland wrote:
It has been published at perl6.language, but have no reply.
In perl v5.8.6 built for MSWin32-x86-multi-thread:
my $i = 1;
print $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
my $i = 1;
print ++$i, $i++; # 3 2
in pugs:
my $i = 1;
say $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
Are default values supported for attributive parameters in an argument list?
I wish to convert these 2 subroutines to perl6:
sub foo {
my $self = shift;
$self-{foo} = defined $_[0] ? shift : undef;
}
sub bar {
my $self = shift;
$self-{bar} = defined $_[0] ? shift : $DEFAULT;
}
Is
Carl Franks skribis 2005-04-21 11:29 (+0100):
I wish to convert these 2 subroutines to perl6:
sub foo {
my $self = shift;
$self-{foo} = defined $_[0] ? shift : undef;
}
sub bar {
my $self = shift;
$self-{bar} = defined $_[0] ? shift : $DEFAULT;
}
Is this correct?
Those are weird
Johan Vromans skribis 2005-04-21 8:22 (+0200):
This is exactly the point (I think) Schwern is trying to make. There
is 'open', that will do most of the time. If a novice user asks how to
open a file, you can say Well, just 'open $fh, $file'. If you want
more than vanilla file access, there
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I understand the implementation details leading to each
behaviour, but rather than saying which was right, I think I'd be
quite happy to see Perl6 copy (the ideas behind) C's rules regarding
sequence points and undefined behaviour. I'm not so
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:32:41PM +0800, fayland wrote:
It has been published at perl6.language, but have no reply.
In perl v5.8.6 built for MSWin32-x86-multi-thread:
my $i = 1;
print $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
my $i = 1;
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
It certainly makes more sense to me that the answer would be 2 2. But
however it ends up, so long as we know what the answer will be, we can
utilize it effectively in our programs.
The trick with this construct usually in C is
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:17:56AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
We'll make continuations available in Perl for people who ask for
them specially, but we're not going to leave them sitting out in the
open where some poor benighted pilgrim might trip over them unawares.
Sorry for replying so late,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:30:07PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:17:56AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: We'll make continuations available in Perl for people who ask for
: them specially, but we're not going to leave them sitting out in the
: open where some poor benighted
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:18:17AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Are the -X functions still going to be there? I definitely hope so!
Certainly. They're useful, and one of the things people love about Perl.
In fact, we're enhancing them to be stackable, so you can say
if -r -w -x $filename
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:36:28 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
Hmm, maybe that's not such a bad policy. I wonder what other dangerous
modules we might have. Ada had UNCHECKED_TYPE_CONVERSION, for instance.
How about
use RE_EVAL; # or should that be REALLY_EVIL?
Larry
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assuming we
rehuffmanize kill to sendsignal or some such, we have:
signal is a verb as well as a noun.
sub alarm ($secs) {
{ signal $*PID, Signal::ALARM }.cue(:delay($secs));
}
It even reads pretty nicely: signal 4242.
--
Brent 'Dax'
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:51:36PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Assuming we
: rehuffmanize kill to sendsignal or some such, we have:
:
: signal is a verb as well as a noun.
:
: sub alarm ($secs) {
:{ signal $*PID, Signal::ALARM
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 06:40:54PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-21 8:54 (-0700):
: if $filename ~~ -r -w -x {...}
:
: Just curious - would the following dwym?
:
: if (prefix:-r prefix:-w prefix:-x)($filename) { ... }
It might do what you mean. Personally, I
17 matches
Mail list logo
