On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
But for the time being I'm tied to an IV pole
We got rid of those; they're PMC poles now.
Get well soon,
Ditto!
Dave.
--
Little fly, thy summer's play my thoughtless hand has
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:59:26AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: So, I must ask, what does this do:
:
: sub foo() {
: return my $self = {
: print Block;
: return $self;
: }
: }
:
: my $block = foo;
: print Main;
: $block();
:
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
To: Jeff Clites
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Block Returns
Jeff Clites writes:
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But this is already supported, in its most powerful form:
wrap block: { call; other_stuff() }
Hmm, no.
That does a call, which presumes a return, which burns up
who-knows-how-many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ Perl6.line* }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/Perl6.block/) {
$block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method
Simon Cozens writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ Perl6.line* }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/Perl6.block/) {
$block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
eval($block) if defined $block;
I prefer $block.compile.run to eval()
They're not quite equivalent -- I think eval's still wrapping a try/catch
around the call.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure someone will make it
mean something. :)
I've been saying for some time now that .= should mean exactly what one would expect
it to mean, method call and assign the result, for code like
$str .= lc;
Austin Hastings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
To: Jeff Clites
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Block Returns
Jeff Clites writes:
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it allows
for Tail Recursion Optimization.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way
So, I must ask, what does this do:
sub foo() {
return my $self = {
print Block;
return $self;
}
}
my $block = foo;
# = sub {print Block; return $self;}
A6:
One obvious difference is that the sub on closures is now optional,
Stefan Lidman writes:
So, I must ask, what does this do:
sub foo() {
return my $self = {
print Block;
return $self;
}
}
my $block = foo;
# = sub {print Block; return $self;}
A6:
One obvious difference is that the
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
And to clarify:
sub indexof(Selector $which, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
for zip(@data, 0...) - $_, $index {
when $which { return $index }
}
}
Which actually creates a closure (well, in theory at
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
but that inner closure is?
But how can the inner closure be called if not via indexof?
I
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
but that inner closure is?
But how can the inner closure be called if not
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
but that
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to
disentangle
itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be
able
to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do Cblock
.=
{ more_stuff(); };/C is way up on my list...)
I've wanted to do that sort
Jeff Clites writes:
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to
disentangle
itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be
able
to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do Cblock
.=
{ more_stuff(); };/C is way up on my list...)
21 matches
Mail list logo
