-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
To: Jeff Clites
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Block Returns
Jeff Clites writes:
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But this is already supported, in its most powerful form:
wrap block: { call; other_stuff() }
Hmm, no.
That does a call, which presumes a return, which burns up
who-knows-how-many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ Perl6.line* }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/Perl6.block/) {
$block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method
Simon Cozens writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ Perl6.line* }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/Perl6.block/) {
$block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
eval($block) if defined $block;
I prefer $block.compile.run to eval()
They're not quite equivalent -- I think eval's still wrapping a try/catch
around the call.
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure someone will make it
mean something. :)
I've been saying for some time now that .= should mean exactly what one would expect
it to mean, method call and assign the result, for code like
$str .= lc;
Austin Hastings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
To: Jeff Clites
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Block Returns
Jeff Clites writes:
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it allows
for Tail Recursion Optimization.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
But that imposes Ceval()/C pretty frequently. Better to provide
some lower-level hackish way
11 matches
Mail list logo
