Luke Palmer wrote about:
=head1 Perl 6 and Set Theory
This document will introduce a new way of thinking about some Perl 6
constructs. In addition, it proposes some minor changes that would
help this way of thinking be more consistent. These changes may make
Perl 6 a better language in general
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:10:30 +1100
> From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> There are actually four types of junction:
>
> conjunction: all(@elements)
> disjunction: any(@elements)
> abjunction:one(@elements)
> injunction: none(@elements)
Oh yeah...
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Of course, as long as you can call C without explicitly loading
> a module, it's merely a philosophical distinction as to whether
> C is core or not.
Well, no; it's an implementation distinction too. Non-core methods
1) don't mean anything special to
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:43 +, Brad Hughes wrote:
> In any case, the choice of default base index is less important for Perl than
> for other languages given how seldom arrays in Perl are accessed by index as
> opposed to manipulated by push, pop, for $x (@array) loops and such.
I slice a lo
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:28:24AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> We could certainly do that. But let's call it C.
I usually just lurk here, but I just had to pipe in. :) I'm not sure the
meaning of the name C would be obvious to someone who hadn't seen
it before. I keep thinking C would be nice,
Damian Conway wrote:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)? The
array refs in @parts are not flattened though. Is it c
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I keep thinking C would be nice, or maybe
C. Just a thought...
C is quite good. Though I still like C best.
Ooh, I like C best. C is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with? part from? part of? partner? et
David Wheeler wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> > Ian Remmler decloaked and wrote:
> >
> > > I keep thinking C would be nice ...
> >
> > C is quite good. Though I still like C best.
>
> Ooh, I like C best.
I dislike C cos it's a small typo away from
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 10:20 AM, Smylers wrote:
I dislike C cos it's a small typo away from C.
Yes, but I would expect to be a compile-time error, since the
signatures are different. The same can't be said for r?index.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
Ken Fox asked:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)?
Yes.
The array refs in @parts are not flattened though
David Wheeler wrote:
Ooh, I like C best. C is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with? part from? part of? partner? etc.).
You know, that's *exactly* why I like C better. ;-)
Damian
Damian Conway wrote:
Ken Fox asked:
Is it correct
to think of flattening context as a lexical flattening? i.e.
only terms written with @ are flattened and the types of
the terms can be ignored?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
Sometimes array references behave as arrays, e.g.
push
[snipped]
> so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
>
> (@foo, @bar) :=
> part [/foo/, /bar/],
> sort { $^b <=> $^a }
> grep { $_ > 0 }
> @data;
>
>
I wo
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 06:00:40 +0100
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Damian:
> > so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
> >
> > (@foo, @bar) :=
> > part [/foo/, /bar/],
> > sort { $^b <=> $^a }
Note: this is back on-list.
> From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:27:55 -0600
>
> [regarding -> as a left-to-right pipe-like operator]
>
> Please do. As in, please point out on list that
> '->' is already established as a left-to-right
> flow/assignment operator so why not
15 matches
Mail list logo
