hcchien raised the following question on #perl6[1]:
If I want to loop through a nine-element array three elements at a time, I do
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> $x, $y, $z { say $x }
But what if I don't care about the elements 1,4,7? Would the following
be a sane syntax?
my @a = 1..9;
for @a -> undef,
Eric wrote:
Hey,
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify why expect pairs
to? I'm not sure i see any value in thatm, $pair.perl.say would be the best
way to output one anyway.
my $pair1 = (a => 2);
my $pari2 = (b => 3);
say $pair1 + $par2; # Error: illegal stringification of
On 22/09/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think +(~$pair) makes any sense, though. It's basically the same
> as +(~$pair.key). It's probably wise to avoid that $pair can be confused
> for its key or value. A good alternative is hard to find, though. I tend
> to prefer 1 at this moment
On 22/09/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, is it really this simple?
>
> class HTTP::Header is Pair {
> foo {
> "{.key}: {.value ~~ s/\n/\n /g}"
> }
> }
>
> Where "foo" is whatever is needed to override stringification.
Something along the lines
Eric skribis 2005-09-21 16:46 (-0600):
> Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify [...]
Oh? I would in fact expect many objects to stringify or numify to useful
values. Just like I expect an array reference to stringify as if it was
an array, I expect an HTTP header object to str
Hey,
Since you wouldn't expect an object to stringify or numify why expect pairs
to? I'm not sure i see any value in thatm, $pair.perl.say would be the best
way to output one anyway.
my $pair1 = (a => 2);
my $pari2 = (b => 3);
say $pair1 + $par2; # Error: illegal stringification of pair.?
I kno
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 17:24 (+0200):
>> multi prefix:<\> (Item $item) {...}
>> multi prefix:<\> (@array) {...}
>> multi prefix:<\> (%hash) {...}
>
> I keep forgetting. What's the rule for determining that the (Item
> $item) is used, rather th
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:54:33 -0400, Mark Reed wrote:
> Watch the attributions, please. I didn't write the above text - Juerd did.
Sorry, I must have gotten confused when I was snipping
--
() Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0xEBD27418 perl hacker &
/\ kung foo master: /me supports the
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 17:24 (+0200):
> multi prefix:<\> (Item $item) {...}
> multi prefix:<\> (@array) {...}
> multi prefix:<\> (%hash) {...}
I keep forgetting. What's the rule for determining that the (Item $item)
is used, rather than (@array), when one uses \$
Hi,
Matt Fowles wrote:
> On 9/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> foo(1,2,3); # &infix:<,> *not* called
>> foo (1,2,3); # same as
>> foo( (1,2,3) ); # &infix:<,> called
>
> Do you mean this to read?
>
> foo(1,2,3); # &infix:<,> *not* called
>
Ingo~
On 9/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> foo(1,2,3); # &infix:<,> *not* called
> foo (1,2,3); # same as
> foo( (1,2,3) ); # &infix:<,> called
Do you mean this to read?
foo(1,2,3); # &infix:<,> *not* called
foo .(1,2,3);# &infix:<,>
Hi,
(sorry for the long delay.)
Juerd convolution.nl> writes:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-19 14:21 (+):
> > \(1,2,3);# Reference to a list promoted to an array (!)
> > \(((1,2,3)));# same
>
> Except that it has to be a reference to a reference, because (1,2)
> (i
Nathan,
On Sep 21, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Nathan Gray wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:16:23PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/
p6_role_model.jpg
I am planning on making Roles self-bootstrapping, so the class(Role)
will actually be the fir
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-21 14:47 (+):
> my $pair = (a => 42);
> say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
> say +$pair; # 0 (pairs aren't numbers)?
> # 42?
> # 0 ("a" is not a number)?
> # 0 (~$pair can't be used as a nu
Hi,
quick questions:
my $pair = (a => 42);
say ~$pair; # "a\t42"? "a\t42\n"? "a 42"?
say +$pair; # 0 (pairs aren't numbers)?
# 42?
# 0 ("a" is not a number)?
# 0 (~$pair can't be used as a number)?
say ?$pair; # true (because 4
On 9/21/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Letting aside the fact that in the 99% of times they're plainly
> reinventing the wheel of glob() a.k.a. File::Glob, there are indeed
> situations in which one may have stuff like
>
> for (@foo) {
> next if $_ eq 'boo';
> # do something usefu
HaloO,
Nathan Gray wrote:
The order that a class does roles is significant, because if two roles
define the same method, only the first one is catalogued by the class
instance.
Ups, this contradicts the concept of class composition which in the
above case should raise an error instead of relyi
Every time I've desired a feature for Perl6 it has turned out that either
it was already planned to be there or I have been given good resons why it
would have been better not be there.
Now in Perl(5) {forum,newsgroup}s you can often see people doing stuff
like
my @files=grep !/^\.{1,2}/,
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:16:23PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
> http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/perl5/Perl6-MetaModel2.0/docs/
> p6_role_model.jpg
>
> I am planning on making Roles self-bootstrapping, so the class(Role)
> will actually be the first Role in the system. From there, Class will
On 2005-09-21 03:53, "Yuval Kogman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 21:09:09 +0200, Juerd wrote:
>> Mark Reed skribis 2005-09-20 14:31 (-0400):
>> This has so little redundancy that it makes very little sense to want to
>> avoid repeating that very short encode_entities($it
HaloO Yuval,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 14:07:51 +0200, TSa wrote:
role Object does Compare[Object, =:=]
role Numdoes Compare[Num, ==]
role Strdoes Compare[Str, eq]
What is the implication of from the perspective of the person using
Object, Num and Str?
Do they have on
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 10:51:53PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: If we go with these changes, this functionality (starting place for a
: search) would be available by using
:
: Foo::Bar<$symbol_to_lookup>; # right?
Presumably, though Foo::Bar differs from OUT
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 21:09:09 +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Mark Reed skribis 2005-09-20 14:31 (-0400):
> This has so little redundancy that it makes very little sense to want to
> avoid repeating that very short encode_entities($item->label).
The fine line is when the midsection is slightly more than
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 14:47:33 -0400, Austin Frank wrote:
> Would the named adverbs for gather work in other contexts as well?
> Would you suggest this mechanism for specifying the buffering
> behavior for IO operations?
See scook's email below... I think that yes. Here is a reference
implementa
HaloO,
Yuval Kogman wrote:
Today on #perl6 I complained about the fact that this is always
inelegant:
if ($condition) { pre }
unconditional midsection;
if ($condition) { post }
I'm not sure if you would considered closure traits as equally
inelegant but what are PRE
25 matches
Mail list logo