Jon Lang wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Now, with some basic types, I know how to do it, examples:
Bool # Bool::True
Please forgive my ignorance; but are there any cases where
'Bool::True' can be spelled more concisely as 'True'?
There are; As long as the short name is unambiguous, it
Hi,
I found something that could be problematic (haven't yet found out if it
should be a special case) in Synopsis 5. More precisely it is under the
chapter Accessing captured subrules in the test case
t/regex/from_perl6_rules/capture.t lines 67–71:
ok(eval(' bookkeeper ~~ m/single ($/single)/
* Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-11-27 11:30]:
In-Reply-To: Message from Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:34:09 PST. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe that the most important issues here, those having
to do with identity, can be discussed and solved without
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-03 21:45]:
loop {
doSomething();
next if someCondition();
doSomethingElse();
}
I specifically said that I was aware of this solution and that I
am dissatisfied with it. Did you read my mail?
* Jon Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-03
* Aristotle Pagaltzis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081204 14:38]:
Furthermore, from the point of view of the OS, even treating file
names as opaque binary blobs is actually fine! Programs don’t
care after all. In fact, no problem shows up until the point
where you try to show filenames to a user; that
* Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-03 20:30]:
OK, so let's look at the general problem. The structure is this:
doSomething();
while (someCondition())
{
doSomethingElse();
doSomething();
}
...and you want to factor out the doSomething() call so that it only
has to be
* David Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-03 22:00]:
FIRST{} can do something on only the first iteration through
the loop, but there's no NOT-FIRST block to do something on the
second and subsequent iterations. Is there an elegant way to do
something on all but the first loop?
Not with a
HaloO,
I realized from the typed literal thread that S03 now explicitly states
that div on two Ints returns a Rat. I remember the state of affairs
being that it returns an Int that adheres to the division of an Int $y
by another Int $x such that
$y == ($y div $x) * $x + ($y mod $x)
holds
* Mark Overmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-12-04 16:50]:
* Aristotle Pagaltzis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [081204 14:38]:
Furthermore, from the point of view of the OS, even treating file
names as opaque binary blobs is actually fine! Programs don’t
care after all. In fact, no problem shows up until
HaloO,
David Green wrote:
Using int8 vs Int is presumably a performance issue, but int8 29 and
Int 29 *mean* the same thing, so they should be ===. An Enum doesn't
mean the same thing as a plain Int, so it shouldn't.
IIRC, === is defined to compare only values from the same type domain.
For
HaloO,
David Green wrote:
Using int8 vs Int is presumably a performance issue, but int8 29 and
Int 29 *mean* the same thing, so they should be ===. An Enum doesn't
mean the same thing as a plain Int, so it shouldn't.
And how about 'Num 1.0 === Complex(1,0) === Int 1'? Should all these
be
On 2008-Dec-4, at 9:42 am, TSa wrote:
I remember the state of affairs being that [div] returns an Int
Something more explicit like idiv was suggested for integral
division. Personally, I'm happy not to have anything special provided
for it, on the grounds that having to say, e.g.
Hello,
GW wrote:
I found something that could be problematic (haven't yet found out if it
should be a special case) in Synopsis 5. More precisely it is under the
chapter Accessing captured subrules in the test case
t/regex/from_perl6_rules/capture.t lines 67–71:
ok(eval(' bookkeeper ~~
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:19 PM, GW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I found something that could be problematic (haven't yet found out if it
should be a special case) in Synopsis 5. More precisely it is under the
chapter Accessing captured subrules in the test case
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM, David Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something more explicit like idiv was suggested for integral division.
Personally, I'm happy not to have anything special provided for it, on the
grounds that having to say, e.g. floor($i/$j), forces you to be blatantly
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:34 PM, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO,
And how about 'Num 1.0 === Complex(1,0) === Int 1'? Should all these
be identical irrespective the fact that they come from three different
type domains? How is that implemented?
IMHO the spec on === is quite clear: two
16 matches
Mail list logo
