David Whipp wrote:
> $b = 7, 6, 5
> @b = 7, 6, 5
I understand that C's *interpretation* of the comma operator will be expunged from
Perl 6. But unless comma's *precedence* is also changing, neither of those statements
would build a list with three elements.
It seems to me that
$b = 7, 6,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote:
>
> > But because C<$num> _might_ be used as an array ref, the data has to
> > be kept around, which is wasteful.
>
> The programmer should know whether it would or wouldn't,
Oh, I wasn't doubting that. I was just concerned that if the 'typi
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:38, Smylers wrote:
>
> > ... lists now use square brackets.
>
> I don't disagree that this is a good thing, but let's look at some
> cases that might not look the way you had intended:
Oh, I hadn't really intending anything. Starting from what
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 11:54:06PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> After testing various cases of x, I came up with one that I cannot
> explain. Can someone tell me what is happening here (in perl5)?
>
> $ perl -le 'print "@{[ $a = ('a','b') x 3 ]}"; print $a'
> a bbb
> bbb
>
> or in other words
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 17:27, John Williams wrote:
> If I understand our non-conclusions so far, we're waiting for Larry to
> clarify:
>
> 1) how to create a 1-tuple/1-item list?
>
> 2) how to interpret the flattened list context? e.g. given this:
>
> > $x = (1,2,3);
> > @y = (
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> >
> > $a = (1, 2, 3); # Same as Perl 5's $a = [1,2,3];
>
> $a = (1) should then do $a = [1], according to the above.
>
> This implies that:
>
> ($a) = (1) implies that $a is [1], something I don't particularly agree
> with.
You may be missing the chang
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff
> > $b = 7, 6, 5
> > @b = 7, 6, 5
> >
> > Again, both create identical objects, under different
> > interfaces. But now we have a problem with +$b: what should
> > this mean? To be consistant with +$a (above), I would
> > suggest that it simply returns the sum of
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Lambert writes:
> Consider:
> $a = (1);
> and
> ($a) = (1);
Yes? They both do the same thing--set $a to 1. It looks like the bottom
one is a list assigned to a list, but that might be optimized out, as it
doesn't matter.
> > 5. Assignment to arrays an
> 2. Scalar assignment.
>
> my $a;# 1.
> $a = X;
>
> my $a;# 3.
> ($a) = X;
>
> These should all do the same thing, regardless of X.
Consider:
$a = (1);
and
($a) = (1);
> 5. Assignment to arrays and lists.
>
> $a = (1, 2, 3); # Same as Perl 5's $a = [1,2,3];
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 14:47, David Whipp wrote:
> It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between
> a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want
After the first couple of messages, that was really no longer *my*
concern, but I can't speak for others. My concern was mostly that
par
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:47:16AM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between
> a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want
>
> $a = 7
>
> to DWIM, whether I mean a list, or a scalar. Seems to me that
> the best way to solve a dichotomy is to d
It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between
a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want
$a = 7
to DWIM, whether I mean a list, or a scalar. Seems to me that
the best way to solve a dichotomy is to declare it to not to
be one: a scalar *IS* a list of one element. The only t
> > In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes:
>
> > > then what about
> > >
> > >$a = (1)
> > >
> > > ? And if someone says that I have to write:
> > >
> > >$a = (1,)
> > >
> > > then I am going on the warpath. That Way Lay Python.
You _can_ write that, but you don't
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:14:10PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
> > >
> > > sub
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
> >
> > sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; }
> > sub foo2(){ my $foo
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
>
> sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; }
> sub foo2(){ my $foo = [1,2,3]; return $foo; }
> sub foo3(*@list) { print @list.length,
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> That doesn't really work. Because now you introduce the case where:
>
> $x = (1,2,3);
> @y = (1,2,3);
> $z = [1,2,3];
> push @a, $x, @y, $z, (1,2,3), [1,2,3];
>
> Behaves in ways that will take hours to explain to newb
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 11:07, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > then what about
> >
> >$a = (1)
> >
> > ? And if someone says that I have to write:
> >
> >$a = (1,)
> >
> > then I am going on the warpath. That Way Lay Python.
I would *
At 11:07 AM -0400 9/24/02, Trey Harris wrote:
>
>*shrug* Regardless of whether we like it, what Larry said is true unless
>and until he invokes Rule 2. And unless he invokes Rule 2,
>C is equivalent to C<[1,2,3]>.
Then perhaps, rather than fretting over the unpleasant consequences
of the curren
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 10:27, Peter Haworth wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> > > sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
> >
> > Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array
> > flattening, thus
>
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes:
> According to Trey Harris:
> > According to Larry,
> > $a = (1,2,3);
> > is equivalent to
> > $a = [1,2,3];
> > because they're both equivalent to
> > $a = scalar(1,2,3)
>
> But that's the bit we're arguing about. If you allow
>
According to Trey Harris:
> According to Larry,
> $a = (1,2,3);
> is equivalent to
> $a = [1,2,3];
> because they're both equivalent to
> $a = scalar(1,2,3)
But that's the bit we're arguing about. If you allow
$a = (1,2)
then what about
$a = (1)
? And if someone says that I have
On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> > sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
>
> Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array
> flattening, thus
>
> push @a, [1,2,3], 4;
>
> will (according to Larry's
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> At any rate, I do wish we'd stop kidding ourselves that Perl 6 is at all
> going to be "cleaned up" or "regular"; I bet it'll end up with more edge
> cases and special exceptions than Perl 5.
Simon, Perl 6 *will* be more "regular" as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> > If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much
> > doomed from the outset.
>
> You have that upside-down. Because this is so fundamental, it's worth a
> great deal of magic to make it "seem right" in as many contexts as
> pos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> say that array refs behave the same as arrays in every way *except* as
> pertains to list flattening, and in that case, explicit flattening is
> required, otherwise the ref is kept in the flattened array.
Another blow to regularity. :(
--
buf[
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> > This is because push is
> > almost certainly defined as:
> >
> > sub push(@target, *@list) { ... }
>
> That should be
>
> sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
Well, yes, but that wa
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:07, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
> > Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean?
>
> We're talking about lists, the second most fundamental data structure
> in the language.
>
> If we have to resort to much magic to
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
>
> So then, I think if there's just some clarification about how one-tuples
> are formed, I think everything I wrote in my earlier mail can DWIM
> correctly. There seems to be no magic here, quotations from LoTR to the
> contrary. :-)
Your post was very h
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> This is because push is
> almost certainly defined as:
>
> sub push(@target, *@list) { ... }
That should be
sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
but otherwise I think that's right.
Now, implementation in Perl 6 (though I assume it's
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:18, Smylers wrote:
> $num = @massive;
>
> C<$num> becomes a reference to C<@massive>, but in a numeric context it
> will evaluate to the number of elements in that array.
>
But in most cases, you would never do this. You would do something like
my int $num =
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> Grrr... I want that to work, really I do, but since, as Larry has
> pointed out, there's no functional difference between an array ref and
> an array in Perl 6, they would be the same. This is because push is
> almost certainly defined as:
>
Replying to myself to clear a few things up...
In a message dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Trey Harris writes:
> 2. Scalar assignment.
>
> my $a;# 1.
> $a = X;
>
> my $a;# 2.
> $a = X;
>
> my $a;# 3.
> ($a) = X;
>
> my($a) = X; # 4.
>
> my($a)
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 15:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
> > > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one.
> >
> > Wha
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 16:58, Trey Harris wrote:
> 4. Numeric value.
>
> The progression spoken about at great length previously:
>
> +()# == 0
> +(0) # == WHAT? 0? 1?
> +(0,1) # == 2
> +(0,1,2) # == 3
> +(0,1,2,3) # == 4
> +(0,...,n) # == n + 1
>
>
In a message dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> Y'all have it backwards.
>
> [1,*[2,[3,4,5]],6] # [1,2,[3,4,5],6]
> [1,*[2,*[3,4,5]],6] # [1,2,3,4,5,6]
>
> Flat flattens outwards, not inwards.
Ah. *slaps head* of course. That makes much more sense
On 24 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > push @a: [1,2,3,4];
> >
> > pushes an array ref onto @a.
> >
> > push @a: *[1,2,3,4];
> >
> > pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []).
>
> Remind me which language this is suppos
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> > for (1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
> >
> > and
> >
> > for 1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
> >
> > Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In
> > Hell Does T
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> for (1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
>
> and
>
> for 1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
>
> Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In
> Hell Does This Expression Mean), is the above equivalent to
>
> for 1,qw(a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trey Harris) writes:
> May I suggest that we start with some DWIMmy examples
Sam sat on the ground and put his head in his hands. 'I wish I had
never come here, and I don't want to see no more magic,' he said, and
fell silent.
--
I hooked up my accelerator pedal in my car to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> push @a: [1,2,3,4];
>
> pushes an array ref onto @a.
>
> push @a: *[1,2,3,4];
>
> pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []).
Remind me which language this is supposed to be, again?
--
"Life sucks, but it's better th
I think this discussion has gotten out of hand, and I hope that Larry,
Damian or Allison will grace us with a resolution soon. :-)
May I suggest that we start with some DWIMmy examples and try to arrive at
a mechanism that will make them all DWIM? Here are my opinions, feel free
to shoot them do
On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
> > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one.
>
> What context does "push" impute on its operands?
>
> If
> p
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:38, Smylers wrote:
> So if the difference between lists with parens and anon arrays with
> square brackets is going away, it may make sense to standardize on the
> latter rather than the former. In other words, lists now use square
> brackets.
>
> That frees up parens f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
> need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one.
What context does "push" impute on its operands?
If
push @a, [1,2,3,4];
and
push @a, 1,2,3,4;
are goi
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:33:31 -0600 (MDT), Luke Palmer said:
> You know, the idea that square brackets are the only things that can
> make lists is starting to really appeal to me. Similar for squiggles
> and hashes. I don't know how many times in my early Perl5 days I did
> this:
> Since we no
According to John Williams:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > (7,) is an abomination. It's one of python's misfeatures that annoys
> > me the most.
>
> Of course, _requiring_ the comma is bad [...]
Well, I don't know about Jonathan, but requiring the comma is exactly
what Py
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean? Something
> along these lines:
>
> (7) # list context
> (3+4) # numeric context (there's a numeric operator in there)
> (3+4,5) # list context (comma trumps the n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> How do you do C< ($a + $b) * $c > if parentheses are forbidden for
> mathematical expressions?
I thought that , was actually the list constructor, much as => is the
pair constructor. (And hence
a => 1, b => 2
would be a list of pairs.)
Of co
And the one best reason I forgot to include:
How do you do C< ($a + $b) * $c > if parentheses are forbidden for
mathematical expressions?
--
Markus Laire 'malaire' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 10:52 AM -0500 9/21/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>So, you expect 7.pow(2) to work? I'd expect it to be an error (this
>isn't python after all).
Sure, why not? I mean, we already use methods on integers all the
time--what do you thin 12.5 is anyway, other than calling the 5
method on the c
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to David Whipp:
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
> > () == 0 # true?
>
> Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same
> problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax!
v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> Does that matter? This example is fairly contrived, and anybody
> actually concerned about this can always use:
>
> $num = @massive.length;
I'd be in favour of forcing people to say this if they want the length
of the array.
But then, it might be that wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
> Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean?
We're talking about lists, the second most fundamental data structure
in the language.
If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much
doomed from the outset.
--
Luke Palmer wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
>You know, the idea that square brackets are the only things that can make
>lists is starting to really appeal to me. Similar for squiggles and
>
>So parens really do provide grouping, not list constructing. Thus, this
>can stay:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > >
> > > Anyway, (7) or (3+4) should yield a number, not a list, because
> > > otherwise every math expression will break.
> >
> >
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, (7) or (3+4) should yield a number, not a list, because
> > otherwise every math expression will break.
>
> Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we me
On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > my @v = $( &func() );
> >
> > Would provide scalar context. But then assign it to a list...
>
> In the course of reading that I developed a concern about memory usage
> when trying to find the size of arrays. As I understand it th
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > > I can't tell whether (7).length is asking for the length
> > > of 7 or the length of a list, but I would be badly surprised if
> > > (3+4).pow(2) returned 1 instead of 49.
> >
> >
On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote:
>
> Does that matter? This example is fairly contrived, and anybody
> actually concerned about this can always use:
>
> $num = @massive.length;
>
> So perhaps this isn't a problem.
$num = +@massive;
would also set $num to the length, not the ref.
~ John Willi
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > I can't tell whether (7).length is asking for the length
> > of 7 or the length of a list, but I would be badly surprised if
> > (3+4).pow(2) returned 1 instead of 49.
>
> So, you expect 7.pow(2) to work? I'd expect it to be an error (this
> isn
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:46:58PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > > But I cannot tell whether (7) is list context or numeric context,
> >
> > Nope, you can't tell without the surrounding context:
> >
> > (7) + 0;# numeric
> > $a =
Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> (7) == 7
>
> why? Otherwise, we couldn't use parens for mathematical expressions
But as Luke Palmer pointed about above, this syntax would make
square brackets redundant, so we could now use those unambiguously for
overriding mathematical precedence ...
(Sorry about t
Luke Palmer wrote:
> my @v = $( &func() );
>
> Would provide scalar context. But then assign it to a list...
In the course of reading that I developed a concern about memory usage
when trying to find the size of arrays. As I understand it the Perl 5
syntax for discovering the number of
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > But I cannot tell whether (7) is list context or numeric context,
>
> Nope, you can't tell without the surrounding context:
>
> (7) + 0;# numeric
> $a = (7); # list
> (7) == 1; # boolean (same as (7).length =
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
> > it introduces subtle bug potentials.
> >
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
>
> Why is this one false? I'd expect it to be true just as the others.
(7) == 7
why? Otherwise, we couldn't use
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to John Williams:
> > I believe the last two cases should be:
> > (7,)== 1
> > (,) == 0
>
> Gack! It's Python's tuple syntax! Run away! Run away!
>
> Seriously, having actually programmed Python for m
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:17:42PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
> >
> > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think.
> > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the
> > last value.)
>
> This kind of clever magic
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:02:52PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> > If this is the case, then can you also have:
> >
> > (,7)
> >
> > What is its length?
>
> Hmm, it's a syntax error in perl5.
I'd advocate it continuing to be a syntax error in perl 6.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> > I believe the last two cases should be:
> >
> > (7,)== 1
> > (,) == 0
> >
> > Because its the perl6 comma that creates the list, not the parenthesis.
> >
> > ~ John Williams
>
> If this is the case, then can you also have:
>
> (,7)
>
>
According to John Williams:
> I believe the last two cases should be:
> (7,)== 1
> (,) == 0
Gack! It's Python's tuple syntax! Run away! Run away!
Seriously, having actually programmed Python for money (no smiley --
it was NOT fun), I can say that this syntactical hack would be
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
> > it introduces subtle bug potentials.
> >
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
> > () == 0 # true?
>
> I believe the last two cases should be:
>
> (7,)== 1
> (,) == 0
>
> B
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, David Whipp wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
> >
> > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think.
> > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the
> > last value.)
>
> This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Luke Palmer:
> > I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this:
> >
> > my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") );
>
> Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in
>
> my @v = ( &func() );
>
> that &func is called
According to David Whipp:
> (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> (7,8) == 2 # true
> (7) == 1 # false
> () == 0 # true?
Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same
problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax!
Larry, I strongly suggest that making () act in any way like [
Larry wrote:
> : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
>
> It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think.
> (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the
> last value.)
This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
it introduces subtle bug potentials.
(7,8,9) ==
According to Luke Palmer:
> I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this:
>
> my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") );
Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in
my @v = ( &func() );
that &func is called in a scalar context.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
> >I was just thinking that $((1,2,3)) is also the same as [1,2,3],
> >and shorter than scalar(1,2,3).
> >
> I wonder if you can't just use $(1, 2, 3) to the same effect.
I think you can. I was under the impression that the C comma was dying,
so that would have to make a list or err.
> Al
John Williams wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
>>: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>>: >
>>: > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
>>: >
>>: > $arrayref = (1,2,3);
>>:
>>: That wou
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
> : On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> : >
> : > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
> : >
> : > $arrayref = (1,2,3);
> :
> : That would seem to obviate the need for
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: >
: > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
: >
: > $arrayref = (1,2,3);
:
: That would seem to obviate the need for brackets to define array
: references. Is there any
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
>
> $arrayref = (1,2,3);
That would seem to obviate the need for brackets to define array
references. Is there any case where [1,2,3] would be needed instead of
(1,2,3)?
Al
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 10:39, Larry Wall wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : Is that "any list" as oppopsed to "any array"? Or is that arrayref in a
> : numeric context the length of the array? In other words does this do
> : what I think I think it does?
> :
> : $shouldbe3 = (1,
On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Is that "any list" as oppopsed to "any array"? Or is that arrayref in a
: numeric context the length of the array? In other words does this do
: what I think I think it does?
:
: $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 pro
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 04:14, Larry Wall wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> : > their names. also if you use a scalar to grab something which is in a
> : > quantified outer rule what is put in the var? a ref to a list of the
> : > grabbed things?
> :
> : *nod* Something I'd like to kno
On 20 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: > their names. also if you use a scalar to grab something which is in a
: > quantified outer rule what is put in the var? a ref to a list of the
: > grabbed things?
:
: *nod* Something I'd like to know.
Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will m
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes:
>> actually i just had another thought. you don't need any of the $foo :=
>> stuff as the match tree will have it all for you.
SC> Yes, but it's nice to be able to access the captured thin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes:
> actually i just had another thought. you don't need any of the $foo :=
> stuff as the match tree will have it all for you.
Yes, but it's nice to be able to access the captured things by
name. Or should I be saying things like
rule raiddev { *
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> rule comm_eol { ? \n };
>>
>> aren't those 's redundant? the first is overlapping with the one at
>> the beginning of comment.
SC> But only matches if there *is* a comment, and there may not
SC> be, so I want to match opt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes:
> shouldn't that have a inside the blank line?
Or *, yes.
> SC> rule comm_eol { ? \n };
>
> aren't those 's redundant? the first is overlapping with the one at
> the beginning of comment.
But only matches if there *is* a comment, and there may not
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> raiddev /dev/md0
SC> raid-level 5
SC> option value
SC> option value
SC> ...
SC> device /dev/sde1
SC> raid-disk 0
91 matches
Mail list logo