John M. Dlugosz 提到:
What is the difference between (1,2,3) and [1,2,3] ?
One is a List and one is an Array; you cannot push into a list, but you
can into an array.
my @a := (1,2,3);
my @b := [1,2,3];
@a.push(4); # fails
@b.push(4); # works
Cheers,
Audrey
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
Does that mean that traits can come before the signature? Or should it
be corrected to
method close () is export { ... }
It's a simple typo. Thanks, fixed in r14572.
Cheers,
Audrey
Audrey Tang 提到:
However, in S02 you removed the Code class and replaced it with Routine,
but that does not really work; for example, a bare block is a Code, but
it cannot be a Routine since it can't be wrapped in place, and caller()
would bypass it when considering caller frames.
I should've
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
I've edited several of the S??.pod files,but I have not heard back from
the owner ($Larry, whose name is on the top of the file) about accepting
merging or rejecting my changes.
I've posted the files to http://www.dlugosz.com/Perl6/offerings/ so
they don't get lost, until
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
A method can refer to private attributes etc. in other objects than
self. This is unlike Smalltalk and like C++. Which objects? Obviously,
those that _have_ them in the first place.
Correct, though those classes also has to trust the calling class:
class MyClass { has
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
That seems to be saying that using the method-call form is preferred, as
it abstracts whether it is a real hard attribute or not.
Er, it is not so.
The $.foo notation is good not only for calling accessors, but also as a
way to specify context when calling oneself's
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
OK, trust is not implicit on derived classes. Is that because there is
no rule that says it is, or is there a mention of that somewhere in the
official docs?
There is. S12 Line 561:
Every Idot declaration also declares a corresponding private
Iexclamation storage
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Seriously,
Does this mean that the access of private attributes from trusted
classes is a different form? And that's why you need the qualified
syntax when I think it should not be necessary in all cases? Or should
that passage really say not in non-trusted classes,
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
In S29, there are definitions like
our Capture method shape (@array: ) is export
But in S12 there is no mention as to what an our method is. It states that
my is used to make private methods, and ^ to make class methods.
I think this is a doc relic and should be fixed
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
= on Parallelized parameters and autothreading
use autoindex;
do { @c[$^i, $^j, $^k, $^l] = @a[$^i, $^j] * @b[$^k, $^l] };
Shouldn't those be semicolons? Ditto for subsequent examples.
Also, what does the do do? I think it is only meaningful if there was
Audrey Tang 提到:
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
= on Parallelized parameters and autothreading
use autoindex;
do { @c[$^i, $^j, $^k, $^l] = @a[$^i, $^j] * @b[$^k, $^l] };
Shouldn't those be semicolons? Ditto for subsequent examples.
Also, what does the do do? I think it is only meaningful
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
But about your answer, automatically called with no arguments. Isn't
that what a bare closure normally does anyway? Say, I introduced extra
{} just for scoping or naming the block, where a statement is expected.
foo;
bar;
{ my $temp= foo; bar(temp); } #forget about
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
I just finished another pass on S09v24, and in this posting I note
editorial issues with the file that can easily be corrected. This is as
opposed to subjects for deep discussion, which I'll save for later and
individual posts.
= on Mixing subscripts
Within a C.[]
Larry Wall 提到:
Yes, unless we decide we need something like that for list
comprehensions. Maybe looping modifiers allow placeholders in what
would otherwise be an error...
Sure. How about this:
Use of a placeholder parameter in statement-level blocks triggers a
syntax error, because the
Larry Wall 提到:
I was originally thinking just loop modifiers, but I suppose
{ say $^x } if foo();
also can be made to make some kind of sense, in the same way that
if foo() - $x { say $x }
is supposed to work.
Right. I've committed the clarification (as a new section).
Nicholas Clark 提到:
So if the semicolon is replaced with a comma, like this,
my @x := [{1+1}, {2+2}];
the {} acts as a hash constructor, and @x is [{2 = undef}, {4 = undef}] ?
No, {} acts as a closure constructor, and @x contains two closures that
returns 2 and 4 respectively when
Thom Boyer 提到:
Audrey Tang wrote:
$code = { a = 1, $b, $c == print };
The examples above are from LS04/Statement parsing.
According to those rules, that last assignment to $code seems to be a
hash, not code. Or does the C == mean that the contents aren't a
list?
Correct, because
在 Jun 11, 2007 5:10 AM 時，Jonathan Lang 寫到：
A variation of chaining associativity gets
used, with the chaining rule being '$v1 op1 $v2 // $v1 op2 $v3'
instead of '$v1 op1 $v2 $v2 op2 $v3', as is the case for comparison
chaining.
But wouldn't that make:
True ?? undef !! Moose;
evaluate to
在 May 21, 2007 8:45 AM 時，Juerd Waalboer 寫到：
Steffen Schwigon skribis 2007-05-21 1:28 (+0200):
That's ARRAY := ARRAY there, so the following should dwym:
my @foo := [ 1, 2, 3 ];
However, this does not work with pugs, so I don't know if I am
wrong, or
pugs is wrong.
Pugs is wrong
2007/2/27, Geoffrey Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As a simpler case than a full 3D engine port, I have some OpenGL
benchmarks in Perl 5 that I can port -- these have much reduced
requirements. Principly, they need:
1. Basic math and string operators (not grammars)
2. Basic looping and simple
2007/2/27, Geoffrey Broadwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
7. Packed arrays with access to raw data pointer to give to API
Is it possible to point us to some use cases of such packed arrays,
especially the raw data pointer API part?
Are you looking for Perl code that creates such packed arrays and
在 Feb 9, 2007 5:17 AM 時，Larry Wall 寫到：
Questions and feedback welcome, but please don't follow up to this
message--start a new thread for a new topic. Bear in mind that
this is completely untested code, still fairly buggy and incomplete.
Not even pugs can parse it (yet).
Note: After some typo
在 Oct 26, 2006 10:26 AM 時，TSa 寫到：
I figure that
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/multi_method_dispatch/
mmd-draft.txt
hasn't made it into S06 yet. So what is the current state of affairs?
The original plan was to have Larry review it in Brazil and check it
in along with an
After nearly four months of development and 3400+ commits, I'm very glad
to announce that Pugs 6.2.13 is now available:
http://pugs.blogs.com/dist/Perl6-Pugs-6.2.13.tar.gz
SIZE: 6839270
SHA1: b06b8434c64e9bb5e3ab482282fbae0a6ba69218
Motivated by increasing use of Pugs in production,
在 Oct 4, 2006 7:46 AM 時，Damian Conway 寫到：
[Apologies for the last post. Gmail got a little eager.
Here's what I meant to send...]
Juerd wrote:
Which can also be written as:
do { do { say 1 if 1 } if 1 } if 1;
Sorry, no it can't. From S4
(http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/
在 Oct 4, 2006 10:17 AM 時，Damian Conway 寫到：
Audrey asked:
However, I wonder if this is too strict. Disallowing while and
until after a do block is fine (and can be coded directly in those
two statement modifier macros), but is there a reason to disallow
other modifiers?
Well, for a start,
在 Sep 28, 2006 3:03 AM 時，Carl Mäsak 寫到：
Audrey ():
Indeed... Though what I'm wondering is, is there a hidden
implementation
cost or design cost of making /foo+/ always behave such that
$foo.from
returns something, compared to the current treatment with the
workaround
you suggested?
Has
在 Sep 22, 2006 10:36 PM 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
Out of curiosity, why not:
/foo bar bar $xyz:=(foo+)/
and then one can easily look at $xyz.from and $xyz.to, as well
as get to the arrayed elements? (There are other possibilities as
well.)
I'm not arguing in favor of or against the
在 Sep 24, 2006 12:21 AM 時，Audrey Tang 寫到：
在 Sep 23, 2006 8:36 PM 時，Markus Laire 寫到：
On 9/23/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@args = [EMAIL PROTECTED],1,2,3;
-push [,] @args;# same as push @foo,1,2,3
+push [,] @args;# same as push(@foo: 1,2,3)
I don't
From S05:
If a subrule appears two (or more) times in any branch of a lexical
scope (i.e. twice within the same subpattern and alternation), or if the
subrule is quantified anywhere within a given scope, then its
corresponding hash entry is always assigned an array of
CMatch objects rather than
在 Sep 4, 2006 2:11 AM 時，Gaal Yahas 寫到：
Unless I'm mistaken, this doesn't cast back to subroutine signature
land
very well:
sub f1 (Dog ($fido, $spot)) { ... }
sub f2 (Dog $ ($fido, $spot)) { ... }
sub f3 (Dog :($fido, $spot)) { ... }
Correct.
Unless Audrey's latest
在 Sep 12, 2006 6:59 PM 時，Gaal Yahas 寫到：
What invocant is constructed in this signature then?
method foo ($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
Consider these cases:
[=] $x, $y, $z;
[+=] $a, $b, $c;
S03 is currently inconsistent. It first says these are not supported:
The final metaoperator in Perl 6 is the reduction operator. Any
infix operator (except for non-associating operators and assignment
operators) can be surrounded
2006/9/4, Ph. Marek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 14:25, Mark Stosberg wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that the variant /with/ the parameter can be considered an exact
match, but but the variant /without/ it cannot be
2006/9/1, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Luke Palmer skribis 2006-08-31 15:48 (-0600):
I don't think using a method (even if called s) is good huffman
coding. My expectation is that copying substitution will be used much -
perhaps even more than mutating substitution!
And so a method called s
2006/8/26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what's the rationale behind the latest changes? I thought p6
consistently regarded the sigil as part of the name; seems like that
should go for named parameters, too. In fact, sigils would seem to be
a good way to distinguish named parameters
在 2006/8/18 上午 3:31 時，Ben Morrow 寫到：
Just to make sure I've got all this straight:
=:= compares names
=== compares containers
eqv compares values
=:= evaluates both sides as lvalue -- that's VAR() -- and compare
them with ===.
=== evaluates both sides as rvalue and, for
在 2006/8/12 上午 3:01 時，jerry gay 寫到：
for managed, i have a few ideas. currently, the suite lives in the
pugs repo. this is a fine first approximation, but i believe it will
soon be time to move this suite (it doesn't make sense to keep the
official tests in a non-official repo in the long term.)
在 2006/8/12 下午 6:15 時，Nicholas Clark 寫到：
There's nothing technical stopping the Perl 6 tests being on
svn.perl.org,
but in a different svn repository from the current repositories, is
there?
Well, technically yes, except that SVK doesn't support svn:external yet.
Setting a svn:external
在 2006/8/11 下午 2:35 時，Luke Palmer 寫到：
I think that standard functions ought not to have underscores *most of
the time*, because their presence indicates something that could be
better named or is miscategorized. However, for methods, especially
advanced or introspective methods, I think longer
在 2006/8/2 下午 2:48 時，Arthur Ramos Jr. 寫到：
I'm new to the mailing lists. I've just started reading all the
Apocalypse and
Exegeses with the goal of becoming involved in some manner.
Try reading the Synopses first. :-)
The Apocalypses and Exegesis are no longer updated, and has diverged
在 2006/7/28 上午 7:54 時，Aaron Crane 寫到：
The motivation for s/environmental/contextual/ is clear: avoiding a
term
that's already used for something else. But, on the same grounds,
I'm not
sure that contextual is the right term, and especially not Cis
context
-- Perl already has contexts,
在 2006/7/19 下午 10:16 時，Agent Zhang 寫到：
I found some nits while copying Perl 6 Synopsis 2 by hand. The patch
created by my TortoiseSVN for S02 has been pasted at the end of the
mail.
Thanks, applied as r10314.
Audrey
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
在 2006/7/6 上午 3:30 時，Allison Randal 寫到：
Quick question, is there a syntax specified in Perl 6 for referring
to namespaces from other languages?
I'm reviewing the namespaces PDD and want to update this snippet:
--
IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES: Suppose a Perl program were to import some
Tcl
在 2006/7/1 下午 6:08 時，Tom Allison 寫到：
I picked this up at the YAPC and made some markups on it.
Apologies that it is not in a diff format, but that's going to come
with practice.
... is there a file attachment somewhere? :-)
I got stuck on some of the intended behaviors and prohibited
在 2006/6/24 上午 8:41 時，Patrick R. Michaud 寫到：
because later in the scope $x may be declared, so it's safer to just
put OUTER right there.
I don't think $x can be declared later in the scope. According to
S04,
If you've referred to $x prior to the first declaration,
and the
在 2006/6/3 下午 3:03 時，Shu-Chun Weng 寫到：
I'll then rewrite most of my rules into tokens. And about the
definition of ?ws, the engine I mentioned is Pugs::Complier::Rule,
so that if what PGE does is considered the correct way, I will
change the behavior of P::C::Rule.
Yes, please do. :-)
By
Rob Kinyon wrote:
I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be very feasible to do this natively in
P5. But, would it be possible to do it natively in P6? As in,
supported within the interpreter vs. through some sort of overloading.
Look at is atomic in S17draft, and Software Transaction Memory in general?
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
- sp is a single character of obligatory whitespace
Hmm, it's literal ' ' (that is, \x20), not whitespace in general,
right? For obligatory whitespace we have \s.
This one has bugged me since the day I first saw it implemented
in PGE. We _already_ have \s, blank,
Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Are all or some of the following equivalent to sp?
U+00A0 No-Break Space
U+202F Narow No-Break Space
U+FEFF Zero Width No-Break Space
U+2060 Word Joiner
No. A05 makes it explicit sp is just \x20, and S05 also says that it
matches one space char, which
Allison Randal wrote:
More importantly, whitespace skipping isn't a very significant option in
grammars in general, so creating two keywords that distinguish between
skipping and no skipping is linguistically infelicitous. It's like
creating two different words for shirts with horizontal
Austin Hastings wrote:
Or, to put it another way: what hard problem is it that you guys are
actively avoiding, that you've spent a week talking about making
substantial changes to the language in order to facilitate lining up
method names?
That's a very good point too.
Initially it's just a
Larry Wall wrote:
On the other hand, - makes a pretty pathetic fish operator. So for
the sake of argument, let's keep it = for the moment. But ignoring the
tail leads us to the head end of the fish. What do we do about $ARGS?
We could say this:
=$fh : *$fh :: = : *
Now if you
During my S03 cleanup today, I noticed that because *$fh and **$fh
interpolates into the current argument list, it's always the same as
=$fh under list context. So I wrote this paragraph:
[Conjectural: File handles interpolates its lines into positional
arguments (e.g. to
Dave Whipp wrote:
Also, I'm a bit confused By the idea that the invocant is obtained by a
scalar dereference, because I know that arrays and hashes can be
invocants, too. E.g. @a.pop. So, If I do:
my $args = \(@a:);
my $b = $$args; # @a as a scalar
my @c = @$args; # empty list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+=item *
+
+Just as Crx has variants, so does the Crule declarator.
+In particular, there are two special variants for use in grammars:
+Ctoken and Cparse.
After a brief discussion on #perl6 with pmichaud and Juerd, it seems
that a verb parse at the same space as
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Two other ideas (from a short walk)... how about something along
the lines of phrase or sequence?
Parsec use the word lexeme to mean exactly the same thing...
Audrey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Dave Whipp wrote:
Perhaps I'm not fully groking the abstraction of the capture-object, but
it seems to me that there should be a slot in it for the method. For
dispatch, all three things are needed (invocant, method, args); so if
you're going to put two of them in one object, then maybe the
As promised yesterday, today gaal and I entered a gobby Q/A session,
producing the first document under the Perl6::FAQ tree, on the newly
coined Capture objects (previously known as Arguments) objects:
http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/Perl6/FAQ/Capture.pod
A HTMLized version is also
TSa wrote:
Note that a prominent, typical foo actually reads:
self .bar;
And a self($_.bar) is pretty much useless. In other words
wrongly huffmanized.
FWIW, I agree with both points. Some more points:
* I think both say(.meth) or .meth.say are more succinct/readable
than say .meth
Brad Bowman wrote:
and against the spirit of the my $COMPILING::x in earlier versions of
S06.
Regardless of the not a block status of a q:code, I think that it's
lexicals should only be visible within the q:code by default. If this
is the intention of the above phrase the it should be made
Yuval Kogman wrote:
What I do think is that there is something in the middle of these
two big questions, and they are:
* How will the Perl 6 compiler be designed (parts, etc)
That... was what Pugs Apocrypha was meant to contain, with PA02 being a
design overview, and PA03 onward
On 2/8/06, Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Audrey is willing, I think a correct new direction for pugs is to
try and separate the parts even more - the prelude is a mess right
now, many of it's part are duplicated across the backends, the
standard library that is mashed into the
On 2/6/06, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking briefly, I would like it if Perl 6 provided a way for a
class (or role, or meta-class, etc) to declare that all variables
declared to be of that type are automatically/implicitly set to a
particular value at declaration time, so that
Is it possible to have it as part of Synopsis 02? It's mentioned
variously in A05, E05 and E07 (where it permits a \c[2026] form, but
should be spelled \d[2026] nowadays), but is not currently part of any
Synopses.
Audrey
On 1/27/06, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because of the favourable response to the prototype I wore during the
post-euroscon Amsterdam.pm meeting, and because Cafepress finally has
black shirts, it is now available for everyone who wants one.
http://www.cafepress.com/perl6
After some
On 1/21/06, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm making a few assumptions here:
1) Since PGE isn't part of Perl6 (because it's written in PIR), it
can be used as the parser/lexer/etc. for any language, not just Perl6.
Rules, like regexes, are essentially language neutral. So that's
Stevan Little wrote:
I realize one of Stevan's objections is But if you use a Hash, does your
object automatically support the .keys method and .kv and so on? to
which I
reply No, of course not. That's silly. It just uses the Hash for
*storage*.
Is that your objection to bless()?
Yes,
On 1/21/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But maybe all this is already possible in the current setup, if
role ObjectFakeHash does Hash {...}
role Object does ObjectFakeHash {...}
class Hash does Hash {...}
Yes, I think that's the way to go, as well as :coerceas for
On 1/19/06, Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you provide a concrete example of the advantage of this approach
please? Failing that can you try and expand on your gut feeling a
bit?
May or may not be of use, but Larry's view sounds a bit like reconcilling the
(again considered
Rob Kinyon wrote:
Any practical programming language with structural subtyping will
probably let you create and use aliases for type names (so you don't
have to write the full form everywhere). However, the underlying type
system will only consider the structure of the type when doing its
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Assuming num uses the underlying floating point semantic (which may
turn 0/0 into NaN without raising exception), what should the default
Num do on these forms?
0/0
0*Inf
Inf/Inf
Inf-Inf
0**0
Inf**0
Doug McNutt wrote:
- - Specify them to return some definite value.
Only on a machine that doesn't do it in hardware or in some special perl
function that's unlikely.
This question arises as different platform answer things differently for
the native calculation of eg. 1**Inf.
At this
Luke Palmer wrote:
I believe we've been through this before. We go with a standard,
probably IEEE, horridly mathematically unappealing though it may be.
It will be easier to implement and it will be more predictable, both
because most other language follow standards, too.
The good thing
Audrey Tang wrote:
That seems to follow from the standard (ruby, ocaml, mzscheme currently
does that), but some may also argue for NaN bothways (ghc, js) or an
exception bothways (perl5, python).
Er, wait, ghc also raises an exception for (div 0 0), because it
distinguishes integer (div
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm almost sure this had been covered before, but I failed to find a
reference in either the archives or in synopses, so here goes again:
sub f ($x) {
sub g ($y) { $x + $y }; g($x);
}
f(10); # 20?
Currently in Pugs, g is built at
76 matches
Mail list logo
