On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:18:47AM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
: As S09 says that:
:
: At the statement level, a semicolon terminates the current
: expression. Within any kind of bracketing construct, semicolon
: notionally produces a list of lists, the interpretation of which
: dep
Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2005-05-14 17:23 (+0200):
Markus Laire skribis 2005-05-14 18:07 (+0300):
[>>+^=<<] (@a, @b, @c)
These arrays flatten first (otherwise [+] @foo could never calculate the
sum of the elements), so imagine that you have
$foo, $bar, $baz, $quux, $xyzzy
to let >>+^=<< op
On 5/15/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does [EMAIL PROTECTED] know the difference between &postcircumfix:
> and
> &postcircumfix:?
Perhaps it checks how many different variations are actually
defined--if it finds only one, it can DWIM, and if it finds more than
one it can barf with an
Larry wrote:
Actually, I think Damian's original formulation is sufficiently clear.
Me too! ;-)
I think that a standard [.] abbreviation for all
postcircumfix operators within [op] reductions would be a useful bit of dwimmery.
Damian
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:45 (-0700):
> : OTOH, reduce probably just needs to be smart enough to understand
> : postcircumfix. Perhaps whitespace helps, [{ }], in parallel with
> : &postcircumfix:<{ }>, to avoid a conflict with an infix {}.
> Erm, I don't like tokens with spaces in the middl
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. To drill down a hierarchical data structure, following the path
> specified by a list of keys:
>
> $leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
When I saw this, the following happened.
*pause for a second*
"Wow."
*a few more seconds*
"H
Rob Kinyon wrote:
So, does this mean that I can do something like:
@a = [ 1 .. 4 ];
$x = @a{2};
and have $x == 3? If so, is there any reason (other than clarity) to
use the @a[] notation? The @ already indicates you have an array vs.
the % which indicates hash. Is there a reason to have the subsc
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:36:22PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> : Larry Wall wrote:
> :
> : >On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> : >
> : >: Unless, of course, there is some subtle difference between a 3-d hash
> : >: and a ha
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:36:22PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: >
: >: Unless, of course, there is some subtle difference between a 3-d hash
: >: and a hash of hashes of hashes that invalidates this.
: >
: >No differ
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Unless, of course, there is some subtle difference between a 3-d hash
: and a hash of hashes of hashes that invalidates this.
No difference, I hope. The multidimensional notation is meant
to extend to HoH and AoA tran
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: >: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
: >: > Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some
: >such.
: >:
: >: The problem is
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
: > Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some such.
:
: The problem is that we already have @foo[] meaning the same as @foo, and
: an always allowed . th
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
: > Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some such.
:
: The problem is that we already have @foo[] meaning the same as @foo, and
: an always allowed . that also allows you
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
> Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some such.
The problem is that we already have @foo[] meaning the same as @foo, and
an always allowed . that also allows you to put whitespace around it.
This means that %foo.{}.$kv should
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 09:20:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:55:43AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> : But perhaps the reduce operator is some of that sufficiently advanced
> : technology that "knows" how the operator it wraps is slotted and does
> : something approp
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:55:43AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: But perhaps the reduce operator is some of that sufficiently advanced
: technology that "knows" how the operator it wraps is slotted and does
: something appropriate.
Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants,
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-14 9:49 (-0500):
> > Then surely $leaf = [.{}] %hash, $k1, $k2, $k3
> > is the same as $leaf = %hash .{} $k1 .{} $k2 .{} $k3
>
> Then perhaps the easy way out is to make .{} $key and
Juerd skribis 2005-05-14 17:23 (+0200):
> Markus Laire skribis 2005-05-14 18:07 (+0300):
> > [>>+^=<<] (@a, @b, @c)
> These arrays flatten first (otherwise [+] @foo could never calculate the
> sum of the elements), so imagine that you have
$foo, $bar, $baz, $quux, $xyzzy
to let >>+^=<< op
Markus Laire skribis 2005-05-14 18:07 (+0300):
> [>>+^=<<] (@a, @b, @c)
These arrays flatten first (otherwise [+] @foo could never calculate the
sum of the elements), so imagine that you have
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
ht
Adam Kennedy kirjoitti:
[»+^=«] reminds me of a P5 regex that has a comment saying "This is
black magic. Don't touch!". --That's-- my complaint.
I look at...
>>but the basic operator there is just ^, with a + modifier to indicate
>>numeric XOR, = to indicate an assignment operator, »« to indicate
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-14 9:49 (-0500):
> Then surely $leaf = [.{}] %hash, $k1, $k2, $k3
> is the same as$leaf = %hash .{} $k1 .{} $k2 .{} $k3
Then perhaps the easy way out is to make .{} $key and .[] $index valid
syntax.
Or perhaps [] can play the role of
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Here are a few of the things I'll be using reductions for in Perl 6...
DC> 3. To drill down a hierarchical data structure, following the path
DC> specified by a list of keys:
DC> $leaf_value = [.{}] %has
Eirik Berg Hanssen skribis 2005-05-14 16:22 (+0200):
> > With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
> > are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <== can solve this?
> I suppose the first must just make sure not to flatten the %hash:
> $leaf_value = [.{}] \%hash, @keys; # %h
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:56:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> 3. To drill down a hierarchical data structure, following the path
>specified by a list of keys:
>
>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
I think this one needs to be written as:
$leaf_value = [.{}] \%ha
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:56 (+1000):
>>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
>>$propped = [but] $value, @properties;
>
> With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
> are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <
Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:56 (+1000):
>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
>$propped = [but] $value, @properties;
With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <== can solve this?
Juerd
--
http://convol
On 14/05/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are a few of the things I'll be using reductions for in Perl 6...
>
> 1. To add things up:
>
> $sum = [+] @amounts;
>
> 2. To calculate the probability that I'll need to use a reduction today:
>
> $fi
Adam Kennedy wrote:
And reduction? I write 25,000+ lines of
Perl a year, and if you are talking about something like
List::Util::reduce, I think I've used it maybe twice?
Which proves what? That you don't (yet) write the sort of code that benefits
from reductions? That you don't (yet) think in t
[»+^=«] reminds me of a P5 regex that has a comment saying "This is
black magic. Don't touch!". --That's-- my complaint.
Indeed. There's a time and a place for that sort of black magic, and
it's usually about once per 5,000 lines of code, and so deep and well
wrapped in comments and unit tests th
> Are there any particular other operators you're worried about?
> I think the current design does a pretty good job of factoring out the
> metaoperators so that the actual set of underlying basic operators *is*
> relatively small. Yes, you can now say something like
>
> $x = [»+^=«] @foo;
>
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:58:22AM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: I just started following the list again after a few months (though I
: have been skimming the bi-weekly summaries) and I'm a little alarmed
: at what seems to be a trend towards operaterizing everything in sight
: and putting those opera
I just started following the list again after a few months (though I
have been skimming the bi-weekly summaries) and I'm a little alarmed
at what seems to be a trend towards operaterizing everything in sight
and putting those operators in the core.
My understanding of P6 after the reading the AES
32 matches
Mail list logo
