single named param

2006-09-12 Thread Gaal Yahas
I was writing tests for signatures and came across this ambiguity: :(:$x) Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant and a single required positional named $x? -- Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gaal.livejournal.com/

Re: single named param

2006-09-12 Thread Gaal Yahas
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote: Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant and a single required positional named $x? A default invocant prolly doesn't make sense there... There's nothing to default to. :-) What invocant is

Re: single named param

2006-09-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 01:59:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote: : On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:46:50PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote: : Does this mean a single named parameter called $x, or a default invocant : and a single required positional named $x? : : A default invocant prolly doesn't make sense

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r11965 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread larry
Author: larry Date: Tue Sep 12 07:51:14 2006 New Revision: 11965 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod Log: Allow [=] and [+=]. Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod == --- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r11965 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread Dr.Ruud
larry schreef: +Likewise, from the fact that list context flattens inner arrays and +lists, it follows that a reduced assignment does no special syntactic +dwimmery, and hence only scalar assigments are supported. Therefore + +[=] $x, @y, $z, 0 +[+=] $x, @y, $z, 1 + +are

sub ($self: $foo ) (was: Re: single named param)

2006-09-12 Thread Mark Stosberg
Larry Wall wrote: I'm trying to decide if sub ($self: $just_a_named_param) can meaningfully put anything into $self. It seems doubtful, and it should probably be submethod ($self: $just_a_named_param) I agree. If sub ($self: $foo) works than it reduces privacy, since

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r11965 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:16:26PM +0200, Dr.Ruud wrote: : larry schreef: : : +Likewise, from the fact that list context flattens inner arrays and : +lists, it follows that a reduced assignment does no special syntactic : +dwimmery, and hence only scalar assigments are supported. Therefore :

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r11969 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread larry
Author: larry Date: Tue Sep 12 11:07:01 2006 New Revision: 11969 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod Log: New X operator and metaoperator. Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod == ---

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r11971 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread larry
Author: larry Date: Tue Sep 12 11:20:04 2006 New Revision: 11971 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod Log: Further clarifications and fixups. Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod == ---

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r11971 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread Daniel Hulme
+Note that only the first term of an CX operator may reasonably be +an infinite list. Now all we need is a variant that does the diagonal order and we'll be home and dry. 'a'..* diagX 1..* - ['a', 1], ['a', 2], ['b', 1], ['a', 3], ['b', 2], ['c', 1], ['a', 4], ['b', 3], ['c', 2], ['d', 1],

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r11965 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread Dr.Ruud
Larry Wall schreef: Dr.Ruud: larry: +Likewise, from the fact that list context flattens inner arrays and +lists, it follows that a reduced assignment does no special syntactic +dwimmery, and hence only scalar assigments are supported. Therefore + +[=] $x, @y, $z, 0 +[+=] $x, @y,

Re: META vs meta

2006-09-12 Thread Sam Vilain
Larry Wall wrote: : There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies $obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta. .META is more correct at the moment. Does making it all upper caps really help? It's still a pollution of the method space, any way that you look

Re: single named param

2006-09-12 Thread Audrey Tang
在 Sep 12, 2006 6:59 PM 時，Gaal Yahas 寫到： What invocant is constructed in this signature then? method foo ($just_a_named_param) Is the signature for foo really the same as that of bar? sub bar ($just_a_named_param) As Larry said, they shouldn't be the same; the first one is

Re: META vs meta

2006-09-12 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: Larry Wall wrote: : There is currently a mismatch between S12 and Pugs. The former specifies $obj.META, the latter has implemented $obj.meta. .META is more correct at the moment. Does making it all upper caps really

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r11974 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread audreyt
Author: audreyt Date: Tue Sep 12 19:35:59 2006 New Revision: 11974 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod Log: * S03: Typographical and stylistic cleanups. Also, clarify that identity values of reduce hyperoperators is more logically defined by the way of a multi variant of zero arity,

[svn:perl6-synopsis] r11975 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread larry
Author: larry Date: Tue Sep 12 21:09:33 2006 New Revision: 11975 Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod Log: tweaks to crossop syntax Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod == --- doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod

Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r11975 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2006-09-12 Thread Carl Mäsak
svn log, speaking on larry's behalf (): +The string concatenating form is: + +a b X~X 1 2 # 'a1', 'a2', 'b1', 'b2' + +The CX~X operator desugars to something like: + +[~]«( a b X 1 2 ) # 'a1', 'a2', 'b1', 'b2' ...and later... +The CX variant crosses the arrays but