On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:06:31PM -0800, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
: Meaning, the gather/take syntax doesn't make much sense, because we're
: not "gathering" anything; the PID file handler has nothing to return.
: We'd only be using it for the "side effect" of being able to pause the
: callee's ex
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 12:27 -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> > oh, yes, whoops! i responded to someone else in #pugs earlier, and
> > forgot to address the item here. C replaces p5's
> > C (that's the latest idea from damian, although it seems n
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> It does bring up a question, though. What if pid_file_handler() needed
> to be broken into three or more pieces, thus containing multiple yield
> statements? Does only the first one return a continuation object, which
> can be called re
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 12:27 -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> oh, yes, whoops! i responded to someone else in #pugs earlier, and
> forgot to address the item here. C replaces p5's
> C (that's the latest idea from damian, although it seems not
> to be published yet).
Ah, I get it! What about perldoc's spe
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 22:56 +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> > When I asked this question on #perl6, pmurias suggested using
> > gather/take syntax, but that didn't feel right to me either --
> > it's contrived in a similar way to using a one-off closure.
>
> Contrived how?
Meaning, the gather
* Geoffrey Broadwell [2009-01-01 21:40]:
> In the below Perl 5 code, I refactored to pull the two halves of the PID
> file handling out of init_server(), but to do so, I had to return a sub
> from pid_file_handler() that acted as a "continuation". The syntax is a
> bit ugly, though. Is there a c
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:24, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> Thank you for the quick turnaround!
>
> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 10:55 -0800, jerry gay wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 09:27, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
>> > It's also not
>> > obvious what a boolean named $doc does -- which probably means e
Thank you for the quick turnaround!
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 10:55 -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 09:27, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> > It's also not
> > obvious what a boolean named $doc does -- which probably means either
> > that it's not supposed to be a boolean, or it needs a s
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 09:27, Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 17:08 +0100, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
>> +=head2 Synopsis
>> +
>> + multi sub perl6(
>> +Bool :a($autosplit),
>> +Bool :c($check-syntax),
>> +Bool :$doc,
>> +:e($execute),
>> +:$execute
Author: particle
Date: 2009-01-02 19:31:51 +0100 (Fri, 02 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24739
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[spec] C<-e6> isn't a separate item, it's a idiom meaning -e '6;'; format perl6
signature, (geoff broadwell)++
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.p
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 17:08 +0100, pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
> +=head2 Synopsis
> +
> + multi sub perl6(
> +Bool :a($autosplit),
> +Bool :c($check-syntax),
> +Bool :$doc,
> +:e($execute),
> +:$execute-lax, #TODO fix illegal -e6 syntax. -6? not legal. -x? hrmm
> +
Author: particle
Date: 2009-01-02 17:17:06 +0100 (Fri, 02 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24738
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[spec] add note about dangers of mixing -e and -e6
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
==
Author: particle
Date: 2009-01-02 17:08:51 +0100 (Fri, 02 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24737
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[spec] add signature for perl6, and make --output-format entirely
implementation-specific
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
==
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 14:19 +0200, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> When going OO, I'd say an augment()/inner() approach would be
> cleanest. See
> http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Moose/lib/Moose/Cookbook/Basics/Recipe6.pod
> for an example. I don't know how to express that in Perl 6 though.
There's no d
Author: particle
Date: 2009-01-02 16:42:53 +0100 (Fri, 02 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24735
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[S19] explain how script passed on command-line or via STDIN works
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
==
Author: particle
Date: 2009-01-02 15:15:35 +0100 (Fri, 02 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24734
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[spec] options must appear before script name; update version/date metadata
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 03:30, Darren Duncan wrote:
> pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
>>
>> --name :name
>> --name=value:name
>> --name="spacy value":name«'spacy value'»
>> --name='spacy value':name«'spacy value'»
>> --na
Author: particle
Date: 2009-01-02 14:36:54 +0100 (Fri, 02 Jan 2009)
New Revision: 24732
Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
docs/Perl6/Spec/S19-commandline.pod
Log:
[spec] get rid of ugly and confusing C<+option> syntax (bad unix memes)--
Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S06-routines.pod
==
When going OO, I'd say an augment()/inner() approach would be
cleanest. See
http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Moose/lib/Moose/Cookbook/Basics/Recipe6.pod
for an example. I don't know how to express that in Perl 6 though.
Regards,
Leon
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Steve Lukas wrote:
> Hello,
>
Em Sex, 2009-01-02 às 08:34 -0300, Daniel Ruoso escreveu:
> token routine_def: {...}
Actually, I was just looking at STD, and the correct token would be
token routine_declarator:coro { }
I was also looking at the spec files, and I realized that DRAFT S17
mentions coroutines, but its defini
Em Qui, 2009-01-01 às 12:34 -0800, Geoffrey Broadwell escreveu:
> In the below Perl 5 code, I refactored to pull the two halves of the PID
> file handling out of init_server(), but to do so, I had to return a sub
> from pid_file_handler() that acted as a "continuation". The syntax is a
> bit ugly,
21 matches
Mail list logo
