On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
this perl5ish:
while (1) {
$num = rand;
print $num;
last if $num 0.9;
print ,; # NEXT
}
print \n;
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:56:30PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: What about combined short switches like C-abc to mean C-a -b -c?
: Will perl6 support this notation or not?
Hmm, that opens up a world of hurt. Either you have to distinguish a
--abc from -abc, or you have to have some kind of
On Thursday 17 August 2006 21:27, David Green wrote:
However, what I'm wondering is whether Order::Same is but true and
the others but false? (Which makes cmp in boolean context the same
as eqv, but it seems to make sense that way.)
OTOH, C programmers can as well assume 'cmp' being an
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:44:35AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Depends on when it fires I guess. Your example might be equivalent to
: this perl5ish:
:
: while (1) {
: $num = rand;
: print $num;
: last if $num
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:00:28 2006
New Revision: 11136
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
No such thing as a first invocant anymore.
Clarified NEXT semantics.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 09:09:21 2006
New Revision: 11137
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
conjecture about conversion of undef to NaN
grammo from Mark Reed++
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
On 8/18/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 12:56:30PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: What about combined short switches like C-abc to mean C-a -b -c?
: Will perl6 support this notation or not?
Hmm, that opens up a world of hurt. Either you have to distinguish a
--abc
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 07:53:14PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: ps. Then there's the perl5-behaviour of perl -n0e unlink where also
: the intervening switches can get arguments. This could be expanded so
: that all chars for which there's no 1-char alias defined, are
: parameters. So
It occurred to me that other day that in our in house C code we
somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
code that you wrap it in a CPP if statement. The logic being that
if you haven't deleted
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 11:58:20AM -1000, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
: It occurred to me that other day that in our in house C code we
: somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
: 5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
: code that you wrap
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 16:27:16 2006
New Revision: 11154
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
Allow for switch bundling.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Author: larry
Date: Fri Aug 18 17:57:09 2006
New Revision: 11155
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
Log:
List comprehensions via junctional syntax.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S09.pod
==
---
On 8/19/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if 0 {
...
}
The one disadvantage of that approach is that it will break if the
commented-out code temporarily fails to compile. If that's a
problem, though, you could always write your own macro.
Stuart Cook
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:47 AM
To: Perl6 Language List
Subject: Re: NEXT and the general loop statement
On Fri, Aug 18, 2006 at 01:44:35AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 8/17/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL
Stuart Cook writes:
On 8/19/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if 0 {
...
}
The one disadvantage of that approach is that it will break if the
commented-out code temporarily fails to compile. If that's a
problem, though, you could always write your own macro.
You don't
On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't actually need a macro in that case:
if 0 { q
...
}
Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
code-commenting construct where you just change the 0 to a 1. After
all, we already have #{}.
16 matches
Mail list logo
