Just some random thoughts about self-referential structures
and their literal representations:
$ perl -MData::Dumper -e '$a=[1,\$a]; print Dumper($a)'
$VAR1 = [
1,
\$VAR1
];
$ perl -MYAML -e '$a=[1,\$a]; print Dump($a)'
--- 1
- 1
- !perl/ref:
=: *1
$ pugs -e 'my @a =
S02 and S06 discuss containers quite a bit. They say things like:
The is NAME (DATA) syntax defines traits on containers and
subroutines -S06
A variable object may itself be bound to a container type that
specifies how the container works without
I was having that problem too going over S09. It seems like we need to get
the glossary together like Uri was saying that we can have a controlled
language for creating the documents. If we dont have one already, I suggest
we start one.
Jordan
On 7/11/06, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 10:06 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
For example:
our List multi Container::each(Container [EMAIL PROTECTED])
In thinking about each, I've come across an interesting need. I wrote
this example:
for each(=; 1..*) - ($line, $lineno) {
say $lineno: $line;
}
Which is
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:28 -0500, Jordan Kanter wrote:
I was having that problem too going over S09. It seems like we need to get
the glossary together like Uri was saying that we can have a controlled
language for creating the documents. If we dont have one already, I suggest
we start one.
In a message dated Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
But would it be reasonable to also provide a named-only parameter to
each for that purpose?
our List multi Container::each(Bool :$stop, Container [EMAIL PROTECTED])
So that:
for each(:stop, =; 1..*) - ($line, $lineno) {
say $lineno:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:53 -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
But would it be reasonable to also provide a named-only parameter to
each for that purpose?
It sounds reasonable to me, but :stop reads badly. Maybe C:strictly?
Maybe it's not
In a message dated Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Aaron Sherman writes:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 09:53 -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
It sounds reasonable to me, but :stop reads badly. Maybe C:strictly?
Maybe it's not a function of a flag to each, but a marking that certain
lists should be tapped non-exhaustively:
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 12:50 -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
But I don't think that will do, because it fails when you don't know
WHICH list would be the longest (or you have to specify them all
as :with, and that's rather counter-intuitive). Perhaps a stand-alone
adverb, :parity makes more
On Tue, 2006-07-11 at 16:22 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
zip(:fewest, @a;@b;@c); # Until one runs out
Once again, I missed some Larry magic. He already selected :shortest
for this, so I guess on roundrobin, it's :longest... ignore my
choices.
I think just like Larry, but 1,000 times slower and
There's a bit at the end of the current S29:
=item A/S??: OS Interaction
I've taken on a few of these, and in doing so found that I was making
some assumptions. I'd like to share those and see if they make sense:
* POSIX will be a low-level module that slavishly reproduces the
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 16:46:40 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
There's a bit at the end of the current S29:
=item A/S??: OS Interaction
I've taken on a few of these, and in doing so found that I was making
some assumptions. I'd like to share those and see if they make sense:
*
12 matches
Mail list logo
