On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Larry Wall la...@wall.org wrote:
Yes, the only difference between Cfor and Cmap is that you can
only use Cfor at the start of a statement. But we're more liberal
about where statements are expected in Perl 6, so you can say things
like:
my @results = do
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Leon Timmermans faw...@gmail.com wrote:
I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map
should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write.
That would make at least one bad practice an error.
Why is r/w map a bad practice if
Leon Timmermans wrote:
I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map
should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write.
That would make at least one bad practice an error.
That sounds very impractical, because the ro/rw distinction is part of
the
Leon Timmermans wrote:
I would propose there to be one difference between for an map: map
should bind its arguments read-only, for should bind them read-write.
That would make at least one bad practice an error.
That sounds very impractical, because the ro/rw distinction is part of
the
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Larry Wall wrote:
the only difference between Cfor and Cmap is that you can only use
Cfor at the start of a statement. But we're more liberal about where
statements are expected in Perl 6, so you can say things like:
my @results = do for @list - $x {...};
my
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:46:51PM +1300, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: I'd like to be able to use grep, map, etc in a currying fashion. Can I do:
:
: my square_list := - $x { $x * $x }.map();
my square_list := map.assuming(- $x { $x * $x});
: And if so, what is the signature of
Em Seg, 2009-03-09 às 12:24 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu:
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:40:43PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: ... $capture ~~ $signature ...;
: my $args_matched = @($/).elems;
: code.(|$/);
That API still would not tell the match whether signature must match the
entire
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:31:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: But both pugs and rakudo respect the arity of the code ref passed to it,
: so that (1..6).map({$^a + $^b + $^c}) returns the list (6, 15), which is
: very nice and very
Em Dom, 2009-03-08 às 21:31 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu:
I think the basic rule has to be simply can the signature bind to
the remaining arguments. If not, we get a warning on unused arguments.
Just to put here an idea I sent on irc...
What if Signature.ACCEPTS set $/ with the matched
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:40:43PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: Em Dom, 2009-03-08 às 21:31 -0700, Larry Wall escreveu:
: I think the basic rule has to be simply can the signature bind to
: the remaining arguments. If not, we get a warning on unused arguments.
:
: Just to put here an idea I
On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:38:29AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:31:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: : But both pugs and rakudo respect the arity of the code ref passed to it,
: : so that
Currently the spec says:
Cmap returns a lazily evaluated list which is comprised of
the return value of the expression, evaluated once for every
one of the C@values that are passed in.
But both pugs and rakudo respect the arity of the code ref passed to it,
so that (1..6).map({$^a + $^b +
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:36:17PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: Currently the spec says:
:
: Cmap returns a lazily evaluated list which is comprised of
: the return value of the expression, evaluated once for every
: one of the C@values that are passed in.
:
: But both pugs and rakudo respect
13 matches
Mail list logo
