On 2009-Sep-20, at 12:48 am, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, I think it's fair to say that either list context OR a :by turns
a Range into a RangeIterator that matches like a list. Hence, this
ought to match:
(1,3,5) ~~ (1..5 :2by)
OK; but I still have to ask why it returns a RangeIterator instead
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 01:29:22AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:45 PM, David Green david.gr...@telus.net wrote:
:
: On 2009-Sep-19, at 5:53 am, Solomon Foster wrote:
:
: The one thing that worries me about this is how :by fits into it all.
: rakudo: given
On 2009-Sep-18, at 8:44 am, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
2,3 constructs a list. 2..3 also constructs a list, unless it's in
a given/when condition in which case it's just a range.
No. 2..3 is always a range. It's just list context that turns it
into a list.
That seems
David (), Moritz (), Aaron ():
2,3 constructs a list. 2..3 also constructs a list, unless it's in a
given/when condition in which case it's just a range.
No. 2..3 is always a range. It's just list context that turns it into a
list.
That seems confusing.
It sounds like the split
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Carl Mäsak cma...@gmail.com wrote:
David (), Moritz (), Aaron ():
2,3 constructs a list. 2..3 also constructs a list, unless it's in a
given/when condition in which case it's just a range.
No. 2..3 is always a range. It's just list context that turns it into a
On 2009-Sep-19, at 5:53 am, Solomon Foster wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Carl Mäsak cma...@gmail.com wrote:
David (),
It sounds like the split personality of Ranges strikes again. I
still think
it makes more sense to have one Series-only type and one Range-
only type,
rather than
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:45 PM, David Green david.gr...@telus.net wrote:
On 2009-Sep-19, at 5:53 am, Solomon Foster wrote:
The one thing that worries me about this is how :by fits into it all.
rakudo: given 1.5 { when 1..2 { say 'between one and two' }; say
'not'; };
rakudo:
Redirecting thread to language because I do agree that this is no longer a
matter of a bug.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Moritz Lenz via RT
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org wrote:
On Thu Sep 17 08:53:59 2009, ajs wrote:
This code behaves as expected, matching 2 or 3 in only one out of the
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Redirecting thread to language because I do agree that this is no longer a
matter of a bug.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Moritz Lenz via RT
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org wrote:
On Thu Sep 17 08:53:59 2009, ajs wrote:
This code behaves as expected, matching 2 or
