HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
Actually, note that both infix:, and circumfix:[ ] can be used to
build lists; so [1] and [] can be used to construct single-element and
empty lists, respectively.
I doubt that. Actually, circumfix:[ ] builds arrays. And note that
there's no infix operator that
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:30PM +1100, Илья wrote:
: Hello there,
: what :foo should exactly produce?
: At first I was expecting:
: foo =
: but in Rakudo:
: foo = []
: and it looks like the right thing on the other hand.
At YAPC::EU I pointed out to Larry that we have an adverbial form that
HaloO,
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 Sep 6, at 13:57, Larry Wall wrote:
But basically I think NIL is a mild form of failure anyway, so it's
fine with me if () is a form of failure that is smart enough to be
I'm thinking () is the non-scalar (list, array, capture, maybe hash)
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
As mentioned on irc, it should do the same thing as foo = ().
The question is whether () in item context promotes to []. I don't
think it ought to, since () is really the only way we have of writing
NIL in Perl 6, and [] isn't really NIL. And I think it would be odd
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, what am I missing that I see no problem with List
always itemizing to an Array?
A List *does* always itemize to an Array. But parens do not a List
make; the discontinuity mentioned is syntactic.
(1,2,3) # (or longer) List
HaloO,
Damian Conway wrote:
At YAPC::EU I pointed out to Larry that we have an adverbial form that
defaults to true:
:foo
For orthogonality and clarity purposes this could also be written
:?foo
and one that defaults to false:
:!foo
but none that defaults to undef.
After
TSa wrote:
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the hint. It's actually comma that builds lists.
So we could go with () for undef and require (1,) and (,) for the single
element and empty list respectively. But then +(1,2,3,()) == 4.
Actually, note that both infix:, and circumfix:[ ] can be used to
build
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Jon Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TSa wrote:
Ahh, I see. Thanks for the hint. It's actually comma that builds lists.
So we could go with () for undef and require (1,) and (,) for the single
element and empty list respectively. But then +(1,2,3,()) == 4.
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:30PM +1100, Илья wrote:
: Hello there,
: what :foo should exactly produce?
: At first I was expecting:
: foo =
: but in Rakudo:
: foo = []
: and it looks like the right thing on the other hand.
:
: (I have started this topic in the November mail list
:
On 2008 Sep 6, at 13:57, Larry Wall wrote:
But basically I think NIL is a mild form of failure anyway, so it's
fine with me if () is a form of failure that is smart enough to be
I'm thinking () is the non-scalar (list, array, capture, maybe hash)
version of undef, which acts like a value
10 matches
Mail list logo
