JMD Consider the words that may be used to introduce a block for a special
JMD purpose, like
JMD
JMD BEGIN
JMD END
JMD INIT
JMD CATCH
JMD etc.
JMD
JMD What do you call those?
Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them situations in the
definition of (eval-when)...
JMD They are not even
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JMD Consider the words that may be used to introduce a block for a special
JMD purpose, like
JMD
JMD BEGIN
JMD END
JMD INIT
JMD CATCH
JMD etc.
JMD
JMD What do you call those?
Well, lessee. The
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Chas. Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like they already have a name in S04: Closure traits*.
* http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S04.html#Closure_traits
I don't know, it seems like any value might happen to both be a
closure and have traits,
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Chas. Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It looks like they already have a name in S04: Closure traits*.
* http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S04.html#Closure_traits
I don't
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the words that may be used to introduce a block for a special
purpose, like
BEGIN
END
INIT
CATCH
etc.
What do you call those? They are not even special named blocks because
that is not the block
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Can you give a pointer to where this was discussed?
It was said by $Larry in the Adding linear interpolation
to an array thread where I also tried to explain co- and
contravariant typing of container types.
Regards, TSa.
--
The Angel of Geometry and the Devil
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 08:52:38AM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
: On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM, John M. Dlugosz
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Consider the words that may be used to introduce a block for a special
: purpose, like
:
: BEGIN
: END
: INIT
: CATCH
: etc.
:
: What do you
Mark J. Reed markjreed-at-mail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Now you've lost me. I was pretty sure that was the block name. AIUI,
you can give arbitrary names to any block, and these names function
the same way (i.e. can be used in flow control statements), but they
also happen to control when the block
As I read it, the original question was about the actual keyword -
e.g. the word BEGIN - as distinct from the block it's attached to.
Though I agree we need a general term for the latter, the name event
block seems to imply that BEGIN et al are events, which might be ok
or might cause confusion
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 01:35:57PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: As I read it, the original question was about the actual keyword -
: e.g. the word BEGIN - as distinct from the block it's attached to.
: Though I agree we need a general term for the latter, the name event
: block seems to imply that
Just so you don't think this is warnocked, I'm looking at it, and
thinking about it. By and large it seems to be going the right
direction, though I've naturally got a number of quibbles.
Probably each quibble needs to be a separate thread though, since
many of them will probably breed
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a larger question, I'm wondering if it's time to slush/freeze
the Synopses as historical documents and put all spec effort into
the new form (presumably as a wiki that knows how to serialize into
a document). I don't
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:11:05PM -0700, jerry gay wrote:
: On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On a larger question, I'm wondering if it's time to slush/freeze
: the Synopses as historical documents and put all spec effort into
: the new form (presumably
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Just so you don't think this is warnocked, I'm looking at it, and
thinking about it.
Thanks. I thought perhaps everyone filtered it out since it had a bad
subject line.
By and large it seems to be going the right
direction, though I've
On Apr 10, 2008, at 13:29 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I might have misremembered, but i thought labels were followed by a
colon in Perl 6. A quick scan of the docs...
It is illegal for a provisional subroutine call to be followed by a
colon postfix, since such a colon is allowed only on an
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 04:38:27PM -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Apr 10, 2008, at 13:29 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I might have misremembered, but i thought labels were followed by a
colon in Perl 6. A quick scan of the docs...
It is illegal for a provisional subroutine call to
I've consolidated all the discussion into one reply:
The perldocs call them Five specially named code blocks, The Camel
names them individually (e.g. BEGIN block). How about phase blocks? They
control in what phase of compilation/runtime the code runs in.
I don't know, phase sounds too
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I've consolidated all the discussion into one reply:
The perldocs call them Five specially named code blocks, The Camel
names them individually (e.g. BEGIN block). How about phase blocks? They
control in what phase of
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them situations in the
definition of (eval-when)...
That's not bad.
Oh, sure, ignore it when I first said it, but let John quote me and
allasudden it's notable.. :-)
An
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:53 -0700
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them situations in the
definition of (eval-when)...
That's not bad.
FWIW, eval-when only
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark J. Reed
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.
but tag
for the keyword feels right to me. We could
On Apr 10, 2008, at 18:58 , Bob Rogers wrote:
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:00:53 -0700
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Well, lessee. The Common Lisp spec calls them situations in the
definition of (eval-when)...
See my latest, in section 4.2, for a first cut on episodes. I took a first
stab at formalizing all phases of translation and execution, and documented
what was known about the episodes I knew about, especially those corresponding
to keywords that introduce an episodic block (as a
It will always be too early, and too late. There will always be
reasons not to do it till next year, and reasons you're hosed because
it wasn't done years ago. Now is all we've got at the moment...
Larry
That's how C++ was. The call to ANSI was hot on the heels of a
statement saying
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, that may be the answer right there: when-blocks.
We have those already: given...when.
--
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My suggestion:
consequential blocks
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn salutojn,
Juerd Waalboer: Perl hacker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://juerd.nl/sig
Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Juerd Waalboer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My suggestion:
consequential blocks
...which would make other blocks inconsequential?
Nuh-uh.
--
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
S06 shows how to define named-only parameters, marked with a prefix :. But
no example shows anything more than a bare parameter name. No type is ever
given!
Looking through my copy of STD.pm, I'm baffled, as it seems not to take types
in parameter lists at all.
So, is it
method bytes (
It is not specified in the Synopses as I recall, but I believe that this is
useful enough that it must be made to work:
method bytes (Encoding :$encoding = .encoding)
returns Int
or even
method bytes (Encoding :$encoding = self!encoding)
returns Int
That is, a named-only
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:26:02AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
: S06 shows how to define named-only parameters, marked with a prefix :. But
no example shows anything more than a bare parameter name. No type is ever
given!
:
: Looking through my copy of STD.pm, I'm baffled, as it seems not
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:35:37AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
: It is not specified in the Synopses as I recall, but I believe that this is
useful enough that it must be made to work:
:
:method bytes (Encoding :$encoding = .encoding)
:returns Int
:
: or even
:
:method bytes
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 09:18:38PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 03:26:02AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
: S06 shows how to define named-only parameters, marked with a prefix :.
But no example shows anything more than a bare parameter name. No type is
ever given!
:
:
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:36:09PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Yes, but where does type_constraint resolve down to a typename?
: My reading of STD.pm is that type_constraint becomes a value
: (since it's not a 'where' clause in this case), and value is currently
: one of quote, number, or
33 matches
Mail list logo
