Jonathan Lang writes:
My apologies for the break in the chain of responses; I lost your reply
before I could reply to it, and had to retrieve it from the list archives.
Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, multi is no longer a declarator in its own right, but rather a
modifier. Synopsis Exegesis
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 - $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
way to write it, but didn't see one.
So, in
Simon Cozens writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
way to write it,
Luke Palmer:
Well... it is and isn't. At first sight, it makes the language look
huge, the parser complex, a lot of syntax to master, etc. It also seems
to me that there is little discrimination when adding new syntax.
Correct.
But I've come to look at it another way. Perl 6 is doing
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
Luke Palmer:
That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
Bah, should be able to!
Will be able to.
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Luke Palmer:
That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
Will be able to.
I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
is sufficiently advanced to massively clone Larry...
--
quidity Sometimes it's better
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:21 AM
To: Language List
Subject: Control flow variables
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code
Austin Hastings writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 - $t {
if
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Luke Palmer:
That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
Will be able to.
I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
is sufficiently advanced to massively
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
$cleanup = bless {}, class {
method DESTROY { ... }
};
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
$cleanup = bless {},
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:49 AM
To: Austin Hastings
Cc: Language List
Subject: Re: Control flow variables
Austin Hastings writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
I was reading the most recent article on
s/// in string context should return the string after substituion.
It seems obvious to me but I mention it because I can't find it
in the apocalypses.
--
stef
OOPS, totally miss-read your code, ignore my first part of my last
message.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luke Palmer wrote:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
Here's the code, Perl6ized:
... ;
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 - $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) 3 {
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
Given that we've introduced the concept of if having a return status:
my $result = if ($a) { $a } else { $b };
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
...
As a Bvalue where possible, so they can cascade and nest.
=Austin
-Original Message-
From: Stephane Payrard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 12:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: s/// in string context should return the string
s/// in string context
-Original Message-
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Control flow variables
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
Given that we've introduced the concept of if
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Control flow variables
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
Given that
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Control flow variables
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:38 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
Given that
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
... # 3
}
...would return $a if $a was true, and fall through to (3) if it was
false?
It sure should, provided there were a correct context waiting, which
would
quite
Luke Palmer started a discussion:
I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
condition, and do something only if the condition was never true.
$is_ok is a control flow variable, something I like to minimize. Now,
there are other ways to do this:
if (0..6 == grep - $t
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, just to make sure, these two lines are both valid, but do completely
different things:
return if $a;
Means:
if ($a) { return }
return if $a { $a }
Means:
if ($a) { return $a } else { return undef }
Damian
-Original Message-
From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:02 PM
To: Language List
Subject: Re: Control flow variables
Luke Palmer started a discussion:
I see this idiom a lot in code. You loop through some values on a
condition,
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:11 PM
To: Austin Hastings
Cc: Michael Lazzaro; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Control flow variables
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Michael
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
This seems excessive, but easily discarded during optimization. On the other
hand, I don't trust the last statement evaluated behavior for loops, since
the optimizer could very well do surprising things to loop statements.
(Likewise, however, for
Austin Hastings writes:
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings writes:
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would that then imply that
sub blah {
... # 1
return if $a;# 2
...
Luke Palmer wrote:
My Cif/Cunless typo may
have misled you, but the original example pushed only if *none* of them
passed the condition.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood.
So you want:
push @moves, [$i, $j];
for 0..6 - $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) 3 {
pop @moves;
-Original Message-
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:34 PM
To: Language List
Subject: RE: Control flow variables
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
This seems excessive, but easily discarded during optimization.
On the
Damian Conway wrote:
push @moves, [$i, $j];
for 0..6 - $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) 3 {
pop @moves;
last;
}
}
Indeed, an elegant way around the problem.
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6
Seiler Thomas wrote:
So... lets call a function instead:
my $is_ok = 1;
for 0..6 - $t {
if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) 3 {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
for 0..6, 'ok' - $t
Luke Palmer wrote:
Jonathan Lang writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, multi is no longer a declarator in its own right, but rather
a modifier. Synopsis Exegesis 6 show this.
I don't know about Exegesis 6,
Then you should probably read it. It is the most recent of the
documents,
Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types - $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has sideeffects...
}
That's just:
given
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types - $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
yada() # has
David Wheeler wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:11 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
Not to be a jerk, but how about:
my $is_ok = 1;
for @array_of_random_values_and_types - $t {
if not some_sort_of_test($t) {
$is_ok = 0;
last;
}
}
if $is_ok {
David Wheeler wrote:
Isn't that just:
for @array_of_random_values_and_types, 'ok' - $t {
when 'ok' { yada(); last }
last unless some_sort_of_test($t);
}
IOW, the topic is only 'ok' when all of the items in the array have been
processed
Unless, of course, the string 'ok'
On Tuesday, November 18, 2003, at 06:44 PM, Joseph Ryan wrote:
And also if @array_of_random_values contains 'ok'.
D'oh! See Damian's solution, then. ;-)
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
I think most everyone is missing the new simplicity of the current
conception of multi. It's now completely orthogonal to scoping
issues. It merely says, I'm putting multiple names into a spot
that would ordinarily demand a unique name.
In other words, what a name means in a given scope is a
- Original Message -
From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:04 PM
Subject: [perl] RE: s/// in string context should return the string
As a Bvalue where possible, so they can cascade and nest.
Excuse me. I
- Original Message -
From: Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So the following three declarations cover very similar (but not quite
identical) things:
multi sub call ($a: $b) {...}
submethod invoke ($a: $b) {...}
method check ($a: $b) {...}
All three of these use multiple
Larry Wall writes:
If you write:
multi method add( $self: Foo $foo, Bar $bar );
then there are multiple add methods in the current class. Note the
invocant is not optional in this case. Also, there's an implied
second colon after $bar, indicating the end of the arguments to be
42 matches
Mail list logo
