Larry Wall wrote:
Speaking of which, it seems to me that :p and :c should allow an
argument that says where to start relative to the current position.
In other words, :p means :p(0) and :c means :c(0). I could also see
uses for :p(-1) and :p(+1).
Isn't that slightly inconsistent with :p meaning
Rick Delaney wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:05:23AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:01:59PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, though I would think of it more generally as
('', $0, '', $0, '', $0, ...)
where in this case it just happens to be
('', $0)
and $0 expands to
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) kirjoitti:
Larry Wall wrote:
Speaking of which, it seems to me that :p and :c should allow an
argument that says where to start relative to the current position.
In other words, :p means :p(0) and :c means :c(0). I could also see
uses for :p(-1) and :p(+1).
Isn't that
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:13:22PM +0200, Jody Belka wrote:
sepsepsepsepsepsep
| | | | | |
11 22 33 44 55 66
| | | | | |
field field field field field field
whoops. add an extra
No, it's not inconsistant. Think about the simpler case split /a/,'a'
which return a list of empty strings. Now ask to keep the separators
split /(a), 'a' which will return ('', 'a', '', 'a', '', 'a', '', 'a, '',
'a'). Now look at
split /(a)/, 'aaab' which returns ('', 'a', '', 'a',
Hello Rod,
I was pointed to your p6l post (4283AAC1.6060106[at]rodadams.net) by
Autrijus. I have already worked a bit on implementing/porting the
functionality of builtins that I want in Perl6 (by stealing from Perl5),
I can try to take over S29.
I'm finding myself in a perpetual state of
Larry Wall wrote:
: If yes, then (1)[0] means the same as 1.[0] and 1.[0][0][0]. If no,
: (1)[0] is a runtime error just like 1.[0] -- i.e. unable to find the
: matching .[] multisub under Int or its superclasses.
Maybe we should just let someone poke a Subscriptable role into some
class
Markus Laire skribis 2005-05-13 11:43 (+0300):
Perhaps spec should be changed so that :p means :p(bool::true) or :p(?1)
and not :p(1)
aol
Agreed
/
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 00:26, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:56:39PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 09:33:37AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Also, A05 proposes incorrect alternatives to the above
:
: /[:w[]foo bar]/
I would just like to
Benjamin Smith wrote:
sub foo { my $x; BEGIN { $x = 3 }; say $x }
foo; foo; foo;
Currently in perl5 and pugs this prints 3\n\n\n.
Which to me looks like a mix of runtime and compile time.
Actually Dave Mitchell confirmed that this is the case in
Perl 5. I have difficulty to regard this as a
On 5/12/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a couple of questions regarding C :: in perl 6 rules.
First, a question of verification -- in
$rule = rx :w / plane :: (\d+) | train :: (\w+) | auto :: (\S+) / ;
travel by plane jet train tgv today ~~ $rule
I think
On 5/13/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To use the phrase from later in your message, there's still
the implicit .*? followed by the rule call. Since the rule
itself hasn't failed (only the group failed), we're still free to
try to match the pattern at later positions.
I'm
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:36:50PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
I'm basically saying that you should treat your:
$str ~~ /abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op/;
As:
$rule = rx/abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op/;
$str ~~ /^ .*? $rule/;
Which means that you fail the rule, your .*?
Larry Wall wrote:
: Void context still exists and is not a form of singular or plural
: context. Perhaps this should be called nullar context, although void
: context works equally well for me and is not confusing because we have
: no Void type.
Nice, without Void we don't need the double headed
There is syntax to define trait and properties
but is there an API?
my $b = eval '$a but true'; # setting a true property
# API to do it without an eval?
A trait setter probably does not make sense but for the
implementer because it should not be set at run time.
Incidentally, in a
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 06:37:50PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is syntax to define trait and properties
but is there an API?
my $b = eval '$a but true'; # setting a true property
# API to do it without an eval?
I don't understand why you think you need the eval here?
On 5/13/05, Stéphane Payrard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is syntax to define trait and properties
but is there an API?
my $b = eval '$a but true'; # setting a true property
# API to do it without an eval?
My question is more generic than my example.
I may not know at
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 11:43:42AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: Perhaps spec should be changed so that :p means :p(bool::true) or :p(?1)
: and not :p(1)
I'm still not sure I believe in booleans to that extent. I suppose
we could go as far as to make it :p(0 but true). Actually, it's more
like
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:26:22PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Well, the value's pretty easy--just pass in a variable:
:
: my $b = $a is foo($bar);
As we currently have it, that is not legal syntax. is may only
be applied to declarations. You must use does or but to mixin
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:31:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:26:22PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Well, the value's pretty easy--just pass in a variable:
:
: my $b = $a is foo($bar);
As we currently have it, that is not legal syntax. is may only
On 5/13/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:26:22PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: my $b = $a is foo($bar);
As we currently have it, that is not legal syntax. is may only
be applied to declarations.
Sorry, think-o. I meant 'but' in my examples
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 12:56:19PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Should I construe the fact that you didn't comment on the ::() to mean
: that the symref syntax works here?
Offhand I don't see any reason for it not to.
Larry
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:40:51PM +0200, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
: And what about the getter part of my question? :)
A12 discusses the relationship of traits and properties in great
detail. Any trait's metadata can be stored as properties at compile
time, and such metadata can be retrieved as
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:52:38PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: : If yes, then (1)[0] means the same as 1.[0] and 1.[0][0][0]. If no,
: : (1)[0] is a runtime error just like 1.[0] -- i.e. unable to find the
: : matching .[] multisub under Int or its superclasses.
:
:
Larry wrote:
I'm still not sure I believe in booleans to that extent. I suppose
we could go as far as to make it :p(0 but true). Actually, it's more
like undef but true, if you want to be able to distinguish
sub foo (+$p = 0) { # no :p at all
say true if $p; # :p with no
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:13:53PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandla) wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
: Void context still exists and is not a form of singular or plural
: context. Perhaps this should be called nullar context, although void
: context works equally well for me and is not confusing because we
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:13:53PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
: Void context still exists and is not a form of singular or plural
: context. Perhaps this should be called nullar context, although void
: context works equally well for me and is
On 5/13/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, I'm quite certain that $r2 and $r3 are different. For
illustration, let's use a variation like:
$q2 = rx / \w [ abc ::: def | ghi ::: jkl | mn ::: op ] /;
$q3 = rx / \w [ [ abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op ] ]/;
Hello all.
In the processing of working with mugwump's shiny new perl6 OO Set.pm.
I realized that we do not currently have a way to uniquely identify
objects in Pugs like the way we have in perl5 (object stringification).
So I asked Autrijus, and he promptly implemented a rudimentary object
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 21:47:52 -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
Hello all.
In the processing of working with mugwump's shiny new perl6 OO Set.pm. I
realized that we
do not currently have a way to uniquely identify objects in Pugs like the way
we have in
perl5 (object stringification).
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:15:36AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I think the misunderstanding is rather simple. You keep talking like
: you prepend a .*? to the rule we're matching. I think that's wrong
: (and this is where I'm making a design call, so we can dispute on this
: once we're clear
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:47:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Hello all.
:
: In the processing of working with mugwump's shiny new perl6 OO Set.pm.
: I realized that we do not currently have a way to uniquely identify
: objects in Pugs like the way we have in perl5 (object stringification).
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:28:03PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
That's what .id is supposed to do, without the bogus numorstringification
semantics. It should return something opaque that matches with ~~.
Okay, implemented as such.
What does unboxed values return for their id, though?
3 =:=
Juerd informed me today that .method should still means $_.method.
However, for the OO modules we're writing, there still needs to be a way
to invoke methods on the current invocant, when the invocant name has
been omitted from the method() declaration.
Currently Pugs has:
$?SELF.method
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 11:41:23AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Juerd informed me today that .method should still means $_.method.
:
: However, for the OO modules we're writing, there still needs to be a way
: to invoke methods on the current invocant, when the invocant name has
: been omitted
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:15:36AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I think the misunderstanding is rather simple. You keep talking like
: you prepend a .*? to the rule we're matching. I think that's wrong
: (and this is where I'm making a design
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment $?SELF is the only canonical form, though the invocant
is also in $_ at least until it's rebound. Any other forms will
probably involve a pragma or macro, since there is no consensus on
a shortcut.
Er, isn't that a mistake that we
On 5/14/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the moment $?SELF is the only canonical form, though the invocant
is also in $_ at least until it's rebound. Any other forms will
probably involve a pragma or macro, since there is no
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:54:34AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:28:03PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: That's what .id is supposed to do, without the bogus numorstringification
: semantics. It should return something opaque that matches with ~~.
:
: Okay, implemented as
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 04:33:44AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 5/14/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On 5/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: At the moment $?SELF is the only canonical form, though the invocant
: is also in $_ at least until it's rebound. Any other
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 04:26:44AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want ::: to break out of *that* dynamic scope (or the equivalent
matchrighthere scope), but not ::.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea. When you say:
rule foo() { a* :::
41 matches
Mail list logo
