On 5/7/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might not be a problem -- I'm thinking we may end up tokenizing
most or all of the meta operators, so that [+] would be considered
its own token, and then the longest matching token rule
would be sufficient to disambiguate the terms:
On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:47:08 -0400, Matt Creenan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So here's some random ideas that probably make no sense ($ can be
optional.. don't know)
*snip*
That brings me to another idea. Is $_ as an array used? @_?
This relates back to the discussion on topics. Could be use @_
Mark A. Biggar skribis 2005-05-06 22:12 (-0700):
Actually if we define |...| at all, I'd prefer it mean abs(), its usual
mathmatical meaning.
No. We can't just use circumfix |...| with arbitrary expressions in it,
because | is taken as an infix operator. It has to be quoteish (like
(this is
Matt Creenan skribis 2005-05-07 1:47 (-0400):
I thought about $blockname = { ... }, but = is obviously taken, as is ==
$blockname =: for 1..5 {
$blockname := for 1..5 {
} $blockname;
} =: $blockname;
} $blockname;
$blockname for 1..5 {
$blockname
Matt Creenan skribis 2005-05-07 4:14 (-0400):
That brings me to another idea. Is $_ as an array used? @_?
The default signature of subs is ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
Hello All,
So I am expanding our .isa() tests for built-in datatypes (in
particular Array), and I have a few (probably very simple) questions
(since I cannot seem to find details on this anywhere).
Is there an isa() built-in for this?
Or it is really @array.meta.isa() (from the Introspection
Stevan~
On 5/7/05, Stevan Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But can it also be a Junction? :
$fido.isa(Dog | Cat)# true if $fido.isa(Dog) or $fido.isa(Cat)
$fido.isa(Dog Beagle) # true if $fide.isa(Dog) and $fido.isa(Beagle)
If it can be a Junction, it makes me wonder if
On 5/6/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is whether to treat the left arg the same way we treat
attribute defaults, with one free closure call. We could say that
{ rand 10 } x 100
{ rand 10 } xx 100
should just automatically call the closure on the left
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 05:11:19PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
: On 5/7/05, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: It might not be a problem -- I'm thinking we may end up tokenizing
: most or all of the meta operators, so that [+] would be considered
: its own token, and then the longest
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:00:08PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On the other hand, since we've distinguished hyperops on infixes from
: hyperops on unaries, maybe an infix hyperop in unary position just
: does the thing to itself:
:
: @squares = »*« @list;
:
: which gives us a sum-of-squares
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:23:15PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Matt Creenan skribis 2005-05-07 1:47 (-0400):
: I thought about $blockname = { ... }, but = is obviously taken, as is ==
: $blockname =: for 1..5 {
: $blockname := for 1..5 {
: } $blockname;
: } =: $blockname;
: }
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:09:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: Hello All,
:
: So I am expanding our .isa() tests for built-in datatypes (in
: particular Array), and I have a few (probably very simple) questions
: (since I cannot seem to find details on this anywhere).
:
: Is there an isa()
A crude hack sometimes used by gung ho p5 testers is to redefine
perl built-in functions. For example:
BEGIN {
*CORE::GLOBAL::read = sub (*\$$;$) { return undef };
}
to test read failures (and so boost your Devel::Cover score :-).
This technique is not very convenient (must be in a BEGIN
13 matches
Mail list logo
