On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 19:24:47 +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 16:57:51 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:17:05 +0200, TSa wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Exactly which exception is continued?
The bottommost one. If you want to return to somewhere up its
::BookObviouslyDoesntExist; }
}
}
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
alternative, does that
affect the numbering of the other alternatives?
# $4$4
rx/ [ $4:=(a) | (b) ] /;
Note that, outside a rule, C@1 is simply a shorthand for C@{$1}
Is @/ also a shorthand for @{$/} ?
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am continually amazed
that in preference to the operator.
Don't we trust the programmer more than the data? I want this code to
produce 4660, 22136, 2832, 3394; not 4660, 22136, 4, 42.
for '1234','5678','0b10','0d42' {
say 0x $_;
}
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a can of worms, it's a tank of shai-hulud
characters [$_ or ()] aren't that
much of a problem? You probably wouldn't be using implicit
variables, anyway.
A backtracking parser seems pretty scary to me. If it takes a lot of
work for the compiler to figure things out, it's going to be even
harder for the programmer.
--
Peter Haworth
it.
Presumably this illegality only applies to closures not officially
declared as subs, methods or submethods?
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever.
much more frequently than zero-arg
sub/builtin calls in hash subscripts.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The capacity of human beings to bore one another seems to be vastly greater
than that of any other animals. some of their most esteemed inventions
have no other apparent purpose
to
it.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have to continue using UUCP for sentimental reasons
-- Ian Lance Taylor
round, and I've read your remarks the wrong way.
Or maybe it is the value type which determines the type of access at the PMC
level, and it's up to the compiler to force the type based on the brackets.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
After all, what is your hosts' purpose in having
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 13:02:18 -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Peter Haworth:
# @b = @a.grep { /\S/ }, $c;
#
# how does the compiler know whether $c is an argument to grep,
# or another element to be assigned to @b?
The same way it does when it sees a normal sub?
I know, late binding and all
methods on arrays, but its a bit
unperl-like to force users to highly specify everything. Of course, if they
do declare methods with all the bells and whistles, they get the benefit of
not having to use parens later on.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Although they all look the same
On 10 Dec 2002 15:34:11 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Haworth) writes:
To know whether the method takes a block, you need to know how it's been
declared. In other words, the type of @a needs to be known to find
grep's declaration.
Well, that's what always happens
On 10 Dec 2002 17:25:34 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Haworth) writes:
Fair enough; that simplifies things somewhat. However, you can't tell
how many arguments they take. How do you parse this without the
programmer specifying a great deal more than they're used
obligatory reference to Eiffel here, which IIR uses the word
once:
But that means once per system, not once per unique argument list.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Interesting trivia: If you took all the sand in North Africa and spread
it out... it would cover the Sahara desert.
= $next();
...
}
}
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...I find myself wondering if Larry Ellison and Tim Curry
were separated at birth...hmm...
-- Tom Good
printable ASCII character for
something. Using French quotes gets around this, since they aren't being
used for anything else. OT3H, I can't find the «» keys on my keyboard, but
I'm sure I'm just not looking hard enough.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you the police?
No ma'am
that not and xor were
just the same operator, but unary/binary. Otherwise, we have ! for boolean
negation only, while ^ does the same thing for other types, as well as xor
for everything. I don't mind leaving ! in as a synonym.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send this via the BT scuz
instance
our FancyCache $cache ! ReallyFancyCache::new; # create subclass instance
Eiffel does let you omit the name of the constructor if there is a single
argumentless constructor, but Eiffel constructors are all marked as such,
which (at least so far) Perl6 constructors aren't.
--
Peter
} is post{
# postcondition 1
} is post{
# postcondition 2
}
If you want an abstract method, just omit the implementation block.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe that's [Java's] niche, its a language for people who like pain.
-- Dean Wilson
lower than 10. C a || b is weaker than
C a
Are there
other ways to do it, just to mull them over?
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I remember being impressed with Ada because you could write an infinite
loop without a faked up condition. The idea being that in Ada the
typical
, so that's what push gets
given. I would argue that 7 is like 6, except that it copies @b's elements.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reporter: Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western Civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.
) can catch typos.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To be considered half as good as Microsoft,
Linux has to work twice as fast.
Fortunately, this is easy.
= $1 } /
Shouldn't they both use C := ?
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some more data?
No, no more. Please, no more...
-- Yanick, examining perl's strange behaviour
give them exactly
what they want. Perl 5 gives you the most flexible way by default (pass by
ref, modifiable), and makes one other option (pass by val, modifiable) easy,
but has occassionally surprising results, such as autovivification.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
E is for emacs
you invoke a continuation you put the call scratchpads and lexical
scratchpads back to the state they were when you took the continuation.
If you restore the lexicals, how does this ever finish?
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a can of worms, it's a tank of shai-hulud
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:42:03 +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
When you invoke a continuation you put the call scratchpads and lexical
scratchpads back to the state they were when you took the continuation.
If you restore the lexicals, how does this ever finish?
Never mind. It's the *access
. By this argument, the rethink should
go in the opposite direction, giving us catch/CATCH.
I like that, especially because it makes the try with no CATCH read better:
try { ... } # But what happens if we fail?
catch { ... } # Implicit CATCH, now made explicit!
--
Peter Haworth
case there's no problem.
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Master, does Emacs have the Buddha nature? the novice asked.
The Chief Priest had been in the temple for many years and could be
relied upon to know these things. He thought for several minutes before
replying, I don't see why
^sub ?
--
Peter Haworth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In Cyberspace no one can hear you scream, unless they have a sound card.
[Apologies for the late reply. Still catching up]
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 20:51:01 -0500, David L. Nicol said:
What if its a method of anything in an array? $_ is already
a reference to the object on the array in for loops rather
than a copy of it. What if we make change be not something
30 matches
Mail list logo
