On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 08:51:03PM +0100, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: according to the new S03, till is the new name for the flipflop
: operator.
Presuming we can make it work out as an infix macro.
: Do the flipflop operators of subroutines maintain own
: per-invocation-of-the-sub states
On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Yep. Also note that "for" is not a special magical construct in Perl 6,
> it's a simple subroutine (&statement_control:, with the signature
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *&code)). (Of course, it'll usually be optimized.)
>
> Example:
>
On 11/20/05, Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reversing an array, changing it, and then rereversing it ---
> I think that kind of pattern is common.
I would think that reversing a string, modifying it, then reversing it
back is more common. Does modifying the reversal of a string modif
On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sub foo (*@;AoA) { @;AoA }
>
> my @array1 = ;
> my @array2 = ;
>
> my @AoA = foo @array1, @array2;
> say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # 2?
1
> say [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # a b c?
a b c d e f
However,
my @AoA = foo(@
Hi,
quoting r6624 of S06 [1]:
> Some functions take multiple Lists that they wish not to be flattened
> into one list. For instance, C wants to iterate several lists
> in parallel, while array and hash subscripts want to process
> multidimensional slices. The set of underlying argument list (List
Hi,
according to the new S03, till is the new name for the flipflop
operator.
Do the flipflop operators of subroutines maintain own
per-invocation-of-the-sub states? I.e.:
sub foo (&x) { x() till 0 }
foo { 0 }; # evaluates to a false value, of course
foo { 1 }; # evaluates to a t
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 04:05:30AM +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> That is, hyphen and underscore are synonymous in identifiers,
> but an initial hyphen is not taken to be part of the identifier.
>
Why not make this feature generic and define equivalence classes for
equivalent characters in an id
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 06:32:17PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:26:21AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> : Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-20 1:19 (+0100):
> : > Maybe
> : > "\x{123a 123b 123c}"
> : > is a nice alternative of
> : > "\x{123a} \x{123b} \x{123c}".
>
> We
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-11-20 16:44 (+0100):
>> Where is the difference (for the user) between a subroutine which
>> returns an appropriate proxy object and an array?
>
> The big difference between pure arrays and referenced arrays, for the
> user, is that pure arrays fl
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-11-20 16:44 (+0100):
> Where is the difference (for the user) between a subroutine which
> returns an appropriate proxy object and an array?
An object is a scalar, an array is an array. Perl has unreferenced
arrays --I like to call them "pure" arrays--, and reference
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> Will Perl 6 support mutable for-reverse?
I'd like it! :)
> Some possible answers that I could think of:
>
> (a) Yes, but as a special case
> (b) Yes, because reverse returns lvalue aliases
> (c) No
>
> But there's another one, that I didn't immediately think of:
>
> (d) Yes
Daniel Brockman skribis 2005-11-20 6:58 (+0100):
> Well, wouldn't pushing an element onto @xyzzy be more like
> pushing the car to @foo and the cdr to @bar, or throwing an
> exception if the new element is not a Pair?
Zipping has nothing to do with pairs, though!
Consider, for example:
@foo
12 matches
Mail list logo
