What about this?
given @foo {
for $_ - $x { ... }
when .empty { ... }
}
You can reverse the order if you want:
given @foo {
when .empty { ... }
for $_ - $x { ... }
}
I don't like C$_, but I can't think of a way to get rid of it.
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL
?
(What is Perl's pair terminology, by the way?)
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
somewhere else.
If so, then that is a symptom of a wider problem. I mean,
wasn't Perl 6 supposed to make this kind of hack a breeze?
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*1.
I would still use that package, and your example doesn't
bother me personally. I would never write $i-1 or $i+1.
But I wouldn't want to be the one to have to reply to all
the complaints about the unintuitive meaning of
@a[$i-1] + @a[$i+1].
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL
have not stepped on anybody's toes, and I humbly ask
that you approach this discussion with an open mind.
Kind regards,
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
which is very obviously not a good idea.
Besides, another couple of hundred lines down, you might
(but you probably won't) find the following code:
eval (foo, bar).join(_)
In the end, this is a suit yourself kind of problem.
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A: Because it messes up
.
Yes, it's very comforting to know that even if Perl 6 won't
have this feature built in, it will be so amazingly easy to
implement in a beautifully clean way.
But what about class Foo::Bar-2.10-cpan:BRENTDAX?
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the
hyphenated identifiers syntax in the lexical block:
use hyphenated_identifiers;
Hopefully the name of that package won't actually have
any underscores in it.
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exegesis 3 contains this snippet,
my $inflation;
print Inflation rate: and $inflation = +
until $inflation != NaN;
but the rule that +hello evaluates to NaN is no longer
mentioned in S03, according to Autrijus.
He suggested I post here to get a ruling.
--
Daniel Brockman [EMAIL
