Semantic confusion alert!
EX3 (great document!) sez:
> print "Inflation rate: " and $inflation = +<>
> until $inflation != NaN;
This requires that C be false, causing the loop to continue
until a valid numeric string is entered. For IEEE-type NaN semantics,
tha
On 10/6/01 10:27 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Doesn't that mean:
>>
>> "hello" == 0 && 0 != NaN
>>
>> will evaluate to true?
>
> No. The step you're missing is that the non-numeric string "hello",
> when evaluated in a numeric context, produces NaN. So:
>
>"hello" == 0 && 0 != NaN
> $a == $b != NaN
>
> really means this:
>
> $a == $b && $b != NaN
>
> But "$a == $b != NaN" is supposed to "[solve] the problem of numerical
> comparisons between non-numeric strings." Well, what if:
>
> $a = 'hello';
> $b = 0;
>
> Do
>From EX3:
> A subroutine's adverbs are specified as part of its normal parameter list, but
> separated from its regular parameters by a colon:
>
> my sub operator:
is prec(\&operator:+($)) ( *@list : $filter //= undef)
> { ...
>
> This specifies that operator:
can take a single scalar adverb, w
Very nice. And yes, too many brackets of various kinds.
Also $this doesn't really describe what it stores.
Maybe $first would be better?
And we can also optimize the performance by making the lexicals
constant (so the optimizer can hard-wire the method names into the
closure). That gives us:
Okay, so this:
100 < -s $filepath <= 1e6
really means this:
100 < -s $filepath && -s $filepath <= 1e6
which means that this:
$a == $b != NaN
really means this:
$a == $b && $b != NaN
But "$a == $b != NaN" is supposed to "[solve] the problem of numerical
comparisons between
> "Damian" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Too much typing:
Damian> module PAIR;
Damian> method car { return .key }
Damian> method cdr { return .value }
Damian> method AUTOVIVIFY (&default, $name) {
Damian> if ($name =~ m/^c([ad]
On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 01:26:53AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > my $foo = $hash{foo} || 'some default';
> > my $bar = $hash{bar} || 'some other default';
>
> What about zero.
No problem in Perl 6.
my $foo = %hash{foo} // 'some default';
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:27:48 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
>Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> so if $key does not exist you'll get 'some default' instead of undef.
>
>Except that a more common case is
>
> my $foo = $hash{foo} || 'some default';
> my $bar = $hash{bar} || 'some oth
Are these the same thing?
print _@{$data.{costs}};
print _ $data{costs};
-John
Brent Dax wrote:
> Edwin Steiner:
> # Could there also be *hypo*-operators, i.e. operators which try to
> # *lower* (reduce) the dimensionality of their operands to the lowest
> # common dim. So
> #
> # $foo = 5 +^ (1,2);
> #
> # would set $foo to (5 + 1) + 2 <...>
> #
>
> I don't really see the u
Edwin Steiner:
# Is this going to concat $a,$b and $c?
#
# $foo = _($a,$b,$c);
#
# (One way to save underlines and spaces.)
# Or would that be:
#
# $foo = _@($a,$b,$c);
That would be C<$foo=join('', $a, $b, $c)>, just like in Perl 5.
# BTW: what will these do?
#
# $a _=_ ($b,$c
Hello!
Is this going to concat $a,$b and $c?
$foo = _($a,$b,$c);
(One way to save underlines and spaces.)
Or would that be:
$foo = _@($a,$b,$c);
BTW: what will these do?
$a _=_ ($b,$c);
$a ^_= ($b,$c); # (better with hypo-operator?, see below)
(WIM in Perl
David M. Lloyd wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > > Backtracking is at the heart of Logic Programming (or Declarative
> > > Programming, if you like). This is one of the 3 main programming paradigms
> > > (along with procedural and functional). The most popular Declarativ
Bryan,
I guess my biggest complaint was that underscore would be the only single
character operator that would be in danger of being lumped into the variable
name. I forgot about x . I use it all the time. If x has that constraint
why not the underscore. I worked at a place where
varia
On Saturday 06 October 2001 03:47 pm, Erik Lechak wrote:
> Thank you for the info. I am more engineer than computer scientist,
> so please excuse the ignorance behind these questions.
No problem.
>
> > Except that the operator truly is simply an underscore. But it's also a
> > valid iden
Thanks for the info,
Bryan,
Thank you for the info. I am more engineer than computer scientist, so
please excuse the ignorance behind these questions.
>
> Except that the operator truly is simply an underscore. But it's also a
> valid identifier character, so where it may be confused w
On Saturday 06 October 2001 04:58 am, Erik Lechak wrote:
> a) I just plain don't like to use the "_" key. Hitting the "shift" key
> and the "-" key just does not feel right. I call this the
> Huffman-Carpel-Tunnel coded argument. That is to say that the more
> often an operator is used, make it
Hello!
I have some questions about unary _
Is this going to concat $a,$b and $c?
$foo = _($a,$b,$c);
(One way to save underlines and spaces if you have many operands.)
Or would that be:
$foo = _@($a,$b,$c);
What will these do?
$a _=_ ($b,$c);
$a ^_= ($b,$c
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > my @images = qw( pic1 pic2 pic3) ^_ ('.jpg');
> >>
> >> Doesn't that clash with the default currying argument?
> >
> > No. The DCA is: $^_
>
> Duh. I brought this up at the London.pm meeting when Simon previewed
>
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > my @images = qw( pic1 pic2 pic3) ^_ ('.jpg');
>>
>> Doesn't that clash with the default currying argument?
>
> No. The DCA is: $^_
Duh. I brought this up at the London.pm meeting when Simon previewed
this, and he pointed out that I was
I completely agree. Although I have found myself agreeing with some of the
more complaining mails, I really really like it. Reading it with a friend
was like reading litterature. We kept crying up and reading aloud. Really.
Larry, your work is worth very very much.
d.
> -Oprindelig meddelel
Erik Lechak wrote:
> 2) RFC 082: Arrays: Apply operators element-wise in a list context
> (hyper operators)
> and
> 3) Special variable representing index of array in foreach structure
> "$#" maybe (not in apocolypse3, I think)
>
Hi Eric. Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately it's a little ear
Hello all,
I have been using Perl for years. It is the language of choice for most
of my needs. This is my first time posting. I have read Apocalypse 3
and many of your responses.
Issues:
1) Binary _or string concatenation
2) RFC 082: Arrays: Apply operators element-wise in a
24 matches
Mail list logo
