Thank you. Silly me, thinking "this is so simple I don't need to run it
through the command-line to test it." :-)
Anway, yeah,
say $_ for reverse lines
Aaron Sherman, M.:
P: 617-440-4332 Google Talk, Email and Google Plus: a...@ajs.com
Toolsmith, developer, gamer and life-long student.
It may make it clearer if I explain the broader objective. I'm trying
to learn P6 thoroughly by developing training courses to teach it from
scratch. (Fans of Gerald Weinberg may recognise the idea.) Obviously,
while doing so, I want to explore pathological cases, both to clarify
the concepts and t
On 19/09/16 16:02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I'm guessing that what you meant was "say as a function was what I > meant to
> use there." In which case: > > say for reverse lines > > or
> > for reverse lines { say } > > These are both valid ways of asking
for each element of the iterable > thing retur
I'm guessing that what you meant was "say as a function was what I meant to
use there." In which case:
say for reverse lines
or
for reverse lines { say }
These are both valid ways of asking for each element of the iterable thing
returned from lines to be printed with a newline.
But remember th
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 16:49 Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote:
say { $_ } was the correct thing to use there. (I'm trying to avoid
> any mention of O-O for the moment.)
>
“Trying to avoid any mention of O-O” seems like a Perl 6 obfuscation or
golf constraint, not a desirable development o
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is this -> ;; $_? is raw { #`(Block|170303864) … } output?
It's the gist of a Block, which is what you asked for when you did a `say`
on an executable block.
Why do you believe `say { $_ }` is the right thing ther
It is the .perl representation of a Block.
> On 18 Sep 2016, at 22:49, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> say { $_ } was the correct thing to use there. (I'm trying to avoid
> any mention of O-O for the moment.)
> say {} was a "what happens if I do this" exercise.
>
> What is this ->
say { $_ } was the correct thing to use there. (I'm trying to avoid
any mention of O-O for the moment.)
say {} was a "what happens if I do this" exercise.
What is this -> ;; $_? is raw { #`(Block|170303864) … } output?
On 9/18/16, Brent Laabs wrote:
> Remember you can call a block with parenthe
Remember you can call a block with parentheses:
> say { 11 + 31 };
-> ;; $_? is raw { #`(Block|140268472711224) ... }
> say { 11 + 31 }();
42
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Elizabeth Mattijsen
wrote:
> I think you want:
>
> .say for reverse lines;
>
> not sure what you are trying to achie
I think you want:
.say for reverse lines;
not sure what you are trying to achieve otherwise, but:
say { }
producing something like
-> ;; $_? is raw { #`(Block|170303864) … }
feels entirely correct to me. :-)
Liz
> On 18 Sep 2016, at 21:52, Parrot Raiser <1parr...@gmail.com> wrote
This code:
1 #! /home/guru/bin/perl6
2
3 # Ask for some lines and output them in reverse
4 # Work out the appropriate EOF symbol for the OS
5
6 my $EOF = "CTRL-" ~ ($*DISTRO.is-win ?? "Z" !! "D");
7
8 say "Please enter some lines and end them with $EOF";
9
10 say { for reverse lines() {} };
11
12 #
S28-special-names.pod
Log Message:
---
fixed my own bug s/=dATA/=data/
On Jul 14, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Parrot Raiser wrote:
When a subroutine is invoked with an empty parameter list, as follows:
run_stuff();
sub run_stuff {
my ($parm) = @_;
say "Parameter is $parm";
}
@_[0] contains "Any()".
Should it?
Yes, but only because of the way you are inspecting it.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:40:01AM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 11:47 PM, Parrot Raiser wrote:
> > When a subroutine is invoked with an empty parameter list, as follows:
> >
> > run_stuff();
> >
> > sub run_stuff {
> > my ($parm) = @_;
> > say "Parameter is $parm";
> > }
> >
On 07/14/2011 11:47 PM, Parrot Raiser wrote:
> When a subroutine is invoked with an empty parameter list, as follows:
>
> run_stuff();
>
> sub run_stuff {
> my ($parm) = @_;
> say "Parameter is $parm";
> }
>
> @_[0] contains "Any()".
Not "Any()", but Any (which say() prints as "Any()"
When a subroutine is invoked with an empty parameter list, as follows:
run_stuff();
sub run_stuff {
my ($parm) = @_;
say "Parameter is $parm";
}
@_[0] contains "Any()".
Should it?
FWIW 'has $!a handles TypeObject' is now implemented, and works fine for
roles.
It doesn't work for classes, because they have a .new method. So the
standard .new is overridden, trying to call the .new on an attribute,
but since there's no instance yet, the access to the attribute fails.
That's a
cognominal stef (>):
> Currently the Range creator method does not coerce its parameters.
> I think Range should be a role so as to impose some constraint.
> I think Bool..2 should fail.
For what it's worth, I disagree. I think Bool..2 should be equivalent
to 0..2 (since Bool is a type object, w
On 2010-Feb-22, at 2:08 am, Moritz Lenz wrote:
At least I'd find it more intuitive if smart-matching against Bool
would coerce the the LHS to Bool and then do a comparison, much like
smart-matching against strings and numbers work.
The downside is that then: given $thing { when some_function
On Sat Feb 20 13:31:33 2010, masak wrote:
> rakudo: say False ~~ True
> rakudo ec47f3: OUTPUT«1»
> o.O
> (which is Worng)
> alpha: say False ~~ True
> alpha 30e0ed: OUTPUT«1»
> pugs: say False ~~ True
> pugs: OUTPUT«»
> * masak submits rakudobug
> can't believe no-one caught this before
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:45:23PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Carl Mäsak
: wrote:
: > my @a = (4...^5); say @a.perl # should be 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4, according to
TimToady
:
:
: That's 4 ... ^5, right? If so, I don't see how you get that. I'd
: expect (4,0,1,2
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Carl Mäsak
wrote:
> my @a = (4...^5); say @a.perl # should be 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4, according to
> TimToady
That's 4 ... ^5, right? If so, I don't see how you get that. I'd
expect (4,0,1,2,3,4), without the countdown between 4 and 0.
--
Mark J. Reed
On 22/12/2009 10:22, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Carl MXXsak (via RT) wrote:
This be Rakudo 8dc189.
$ perl6 -e 'multi sub f($a) {}; multi sub f($a) {}; f(42)'
Ambiguous dispatch to multi 'f'. Ambiguous candidates had signatures:
:(Any $a)
:(Any $a)
The definition of two variants with equivalent sig
Carl MXXsak (via RT) wrote:
> This be Rakudo 8dc189.
>
> $ perl6 -e 'multi sub f($a) {}; multi sub f($a) {}; f(42)'
> Ambiguous dispatch to multi 'f'. Ambiguous candidates had signatures:
> :(Any $a)
> :(Any $a)
>
> The definition of two variants with equivalent signatures (i.e.
> identical up to
Hi there,
I `m looking into MMD, example:
> multi t (@a) {1}
> multi t (Array $a) {2}
> multi t (Positional $a) {3}
> multi t (Positional[Array] $a) {4}
> say t()
1
> say t(Array.new)
2
> my $foo does Positional; say t($foo)
1
> my @a; say t(@a)
2
I am expected some sort of ambiguous there.
Tha
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:19:12PM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
> : As well, isn't there a way to escape a character that would otherwise
> : be interpolated? If the intent were as you suppose, the original
> : could be rewritten as:
> :
> : $ per
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 01:19:12PM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: As well, isn't there a way to escape a character that would otherwise
: be interpolated? If the intent were as you suppose, the original
: could be rewritten as:
:
: $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "\{" ~ $foo ~ "}"'
Sure, though in a
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:43:47AM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
> : On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> : > Ovid (>):
> : >> $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "{" ~ $foo ~ "}"'
> : >> ~ foo ~
> : >
> : > Easy solution: only use doub
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:43:47AM -0800, Jon Lang wrote:
: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
: > Ovid (>):
: >> $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "{" ~ $foo ~ "}"'
: >> ~ foo ~
: >
: > Easy solution: only use double quotes when you want to interpolate. :)
: >
: > This is not rea
HaloO,
Tim Bunce wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:12PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
I really don't think this is a bug, but it did confuse the heck out of me at
first. This *is* expected behavior due to how {} is interpolated in strings,
yes?
$ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo&
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:12PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> I really don't think this is a bug, but it did confuse the heck out of me at
> first. This *is* expected behavior due to how {} is interpolated in strings,
> yes?
>
> $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say &q
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> Ovid (>):
>> $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "{" ~ $foo ~ "}"'
>> ~ foo ~
>
> Easy solution: only use double quotes when you want to interpolate. :)
>
> This is not really an option when running 'perl6 -e' under bash, though.
$ perl6 -e 'my
Ovid (>):
> $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "{" ~ $foo ~ "}"'
> ~ foo ~
Easy solution: only use double quotes when you want to interpolate. :)
This is not really an option when running 'perl6 -e' under bash, though.
// Carl
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 04:41:12PM -0800, Ovid wrote:
: I really don't think this is a bug, but it did confuse the heck out of me at
first. This *is* expected behavior due to how {} is interpolated in strings,
yes?
:
: $ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "<" ~ $f
I really don't think this is a bug, but it did confuse the heck out of me at
first. This *is* expected behavior due to how {} is interpolated in strings,
yes?
$ perl6 -e 'my $foo = "foo";say "<" ~ $foo ~ ">"'
$ perl6 -e 'my $foo =
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 08:06:48AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
> Just stumbled across this, but I can't tell from S09 if this is a bug or
> feature:
>
> $ ./perl6 -e 'my %foo; if %foo {}; say %foo.perl'
> {"a" => undef}
It's a bug. In order to simp
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 08:06:48AM -0800, Ovid wrote:
: Just stumbled across this, but I can't tell from S09 if this is a bug or
feature:
:
: $ ./perl6 -e 'my %foo; if %foo {}; say %foo.perl'
: {"a" => undef}
Definitely bug. Rvalues aren't supposed to autovivify.
Larry
Just stumbled across this, but I can't tell from S09 if this is a bug or
feature:
$ ./perl6 -e 'my %foo; if %foo {}; say %foo.perl'
{"a" => undef}
I wasn't expecting auto-vivification there. The examples in S09 use HoH
instead of a flat hash:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 06:21:22PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:54:50AM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> : Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : > Currently Rakudo is treating [EMAIL PROTECTED] as though it's
> : > prefix:<^> on a List, which S03 says
> : > for ^(3,3) { ... } # (0,
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 08:54:50AM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote:
:
:
: Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: > Currently Rakudo is treating [EMAIL PROTECTED] as though it's
: > prefix:<^> on a List, which S03 says
: >
: > If [prefix:<^> is] applied to a list, it generates a
: > multidimensional set o
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Currently Rakudo is treating [EMAIL PROTECTED] as though it's
> prefix:<^> on a List, which S03 says
>
> If [prefix:<^> is] applied to a list, it generates a
> multidimensional set of subscripts.
>
> for ^(3,3) { ... } # (0,0)(0,1)(0,2)(1,0)(1,1)(1,2)(2,
Some of you may have seen the announcements on the Parrot
lists that Parrot will be starting to use trac.parrot.org
for its issue tracking and bug reporting system.
This is just a note that Rakudo's bug reports will continue
to be hosted on the rt.perl.org server, and we will continue
t
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:05AM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> Larry Wall wrote:
>> > I think it would be best if all boolean contexts collapse consistently,
>> > and I would consider all of those to be boolean contexts. More
>> > precisely, && and || are boolean on th
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:05AM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > I think it would be best if all boolean contexts collapse consistently,
> > and I would consider all of those to be boolean contexts. More
> > precisely, && and || are boolean on the left, but not on the right.
>
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 05:05:46PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : Question to p6l: do && and || autothread? Or do they collapse the
: > : junction prior to evaluation? (I hope the latter, since I think it's
: > : more dwimmy).
:
Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:22:25PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> : Moritz Lenz wrote:
> : > Tests 34 to 36 were a bit overcritical:
> : >
> : > (0|undef && say "not ok 34") || say "not ok 34";
> : > (0&undef && say "not ok 35") || say "not ok 35";
> : > (0^undef && say "not ok 36
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 03:00:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : Question to p6l: do && and || autothread? Or do they collapse the
> : junction prior to evaluation? (I hope the latter, since I think it's
> : more dwimmy).
> :
> : Also do prefix: and prefix: collapse the junction?
>
> I think it wo
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 09:22:25PM +0200, Moritz Lenz wrote:
: Moritz Lenz wrote:
: > Tests 34 to 36 were a bit overcritical:
: >
: > (0|undef && say "not ok 34") || say "not ok 34";
: > (0&undef && say "not ok 35") || say "not ok 35";
: > (0^undef && say "not ok 36") || say "not ok 36";
: >
: >
Moritz Lenz wrote:
> Tests 34 to 36 were a bit overcritical:
>
> (0|undef && say "not ok 34") || say "not ok 34";
> (0&undef && say "not ok 35") || say "not ok 35";
> (0^undef && say "not ok 36") || say "not ok 36";
>
> but are easily corrected. The rest seem fine to me.
Easier said than done.
Q
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 an
Steffen Schwigon skribis 2007-05-21 1:28 (+0200):
> 1. Should assigning an arrayref to an array dereference?
No, an array in list context only flattens when it has the @ sigil, or
when it is explicitly flattened with the [] postcircumfix operator, or
the | prefix operator.
>Which Synopses de
Hi!
Yesterday we discussed a strange behaviour of .perl on the result of a
hyperoperator. The basic bug is that
my @hyp = -« ([1, 2], 3);
say @hyp.perl;
outputs
[(-1, -2), -3]
which are strange inner parens inside the brackets that would get
flattened after eval. I committed a :todo
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 10:26:41AM -0600, Jonathan Rockway wrote:
: Ovid wrote:
: (reversed the message a bit)
: > is 'b', any('a' .. 'h'), 'junctions should work';
:
: This looks like a Test "bug"; it's doing something like:
:
:
Ovid wrote:
(reversed the message a bit)
> is 'b', any('a' .. 'h'), 'junctions should work';
This looks like a Test "bug"; it's doing something like:
is 'b', 'a' # not ok
is 'b', 'b'
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 07:39:23AM +0300, Ilmari Vacklin wrote:
: Hi,
:
: S04 says thus:
:
: The default case:
:
: default {...}
:
: is exactly equivalent to
:
: when true {...}
:
: However, that parses to:
:
: if $_ ~~ bool::true { ...; leave }
:
: Which is not
On 10/23/05, Ilmari Vacklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> S04 says thus:
>
> The default case:
>
> default {...}
>
> is exactly equivalent to
>
> when true {...}
>
> However, that parses to:
>
> if $_ ~~ bool::true { ...; leave }
>
> Which is not executed if $_ is
Hi,
S04 says thus:
The default case:
default {...}
is exactly equivalent to
when true {...}
However, that parses to:
if $_ ~~ bool::true { ...; leave }
Which is not executed if $_ is false, unless ~~ bool::true does
something special. Perhaps default should be eq
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
That depends on whether you mean
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).words
or
~(@array.words)
It happens to mean the latter. A . binds tighter than a symbolic
unary
wolverian skribis 2005-04-05 19:31 (+0300):
> Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
Yes, . is supertight.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:21:41AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Plus you really don't want to clutter the Str type with every little
> thing you might want to do with a string. "foo".open() will probably
> work, but only because it doesn't find a Str.open and fails over to
> MMD dispatch, which ends
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:36:18AM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: (Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
:
: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
: > afford to throw a few more convenience functions
> Shouldn't these be just methods?
I guess not. This is Perl and OO is not mandatory, or even desirable
all the time.
Adriano.
(Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
> afford to throw a few more convenience functions out there for common
> operations like word splitting and whitespace
The 'DEVELOPING' file accidentally made its way into the MANIFEST, but
doesn't actually exist in the tarball. It's not a problem, as you can
delete the appropriate line in the MANIFEST and continue, but given the
large file size I thought I should alert you. 0.0.8.1 is being uploaded
at the moment
64 matches
Mail list logo