Jon Lang asked me if I intended to send this message to him privately.
The answer is No...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Buddha Buck blaisepas...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: dimensionality in Perl 6
To: Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Buddha Buck wrote:
I don't think a Num is necessary, but I could see a Rat.
As is, is Duration implemented by means of a Num, or a Rat? Whichever
it is, that's the type that the difference of two Instances would
return
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org wrote:
On 10/22/2010 06:16 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
That is, a C$value is an eigenstate of a C$junction if-and-only-if:
$value !~~ Junction $value ~~ $junction
In general this definition makes it impossible to return a
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso dan...@ruoso.com wrote:
The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
for the number of seconds between 2008-12-31T23:59:59+ and
2009-01-01T00:00:00+ you'll get 2 because of the leap second. But
you don't need to
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Forrest Sheng Baoforrest@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I mean both Perl 5 and Perl 6. I couldn't find proper list to ask this
question. So I asked in this list.
I'm not sure perl6-language is the proper place to be asking about the
time-complexity of hashes in Perl6,
Resent to list as I intended to in the first place
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Darren Duncandar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John Macdonald j...@perlwolf.com wrote:
Yep, I've done that.
But comparing the difference in effort between:
- press a key
- Google for a web page that has the right character set, cut,
Resending to list
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce
some ideas.
Secondly, regarding the Bool type, I think it would be useful for Perl 6 to
define the full
Sorry to reply to the wrong comment, but I lost the original thread in
my mail archives and didn't notice this until now.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
The fundamental flaw of metric mmd is that it
On 11/22/06, Anatoly Vorobey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First of all, thanks a lot for your comments.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 06:43:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
{
my $x = something();
if $x==1 {
...code...
}
}
My experience with other statically typed by extremely flexable
On 10/23/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/23/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Markus Laire writes:
Does anyone know if programming languages are protected by copyright
or not?
Code can be copyrighted; ideas can't be.
Yes, but the syntax of the programming language is
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:02 +0100, The Perl 6 Summarizer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-09-17
Another week, another summary, and I'm running late. So:
This week in perl6-compiler
Bootstrapping the grammar
Uri Guttman had some thoughts on
Originally sent to Austin alone by accident
Austin Hastings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
role A {has Cat $.x;}
role B {has Dog $.x;}
class Foo {does Cat; does Dog;}
my Foo $bar;
$bar.x; # Is this a Cat or a Dog?
A12
If, however, two roles
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
re-open the RFC process?
RFC's are proposals before the comments.
Smylers wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm, in
either direction:
$in - lex - parse - codify - optimize - $out; # L2R
$out - optimize - codify - parse - lex - $in; # R2L
It's clear, from looking at either of those,
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 09:51 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
From: Sean O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So 'if' and friends are just (native) subroutines with prototypes like:
IIRC it's not that pretty, unfortunately, if you
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, to bring this thread back on track *again*, I hopefully offer this
summary.
1) Damian's idea of using ~ and ~ as L2R and R2L is well-liked. Thus:
@out = grep { ... } map { ... } @in; # (1) (perl5)
becomes any of the following:
@out =
Brent Dax wrote:
Incorrect. The translation sequence is:
@in ~ map { ... } ~ grep { ... } ~ @out
((@in ~ map { ... }) ~ grep { ... }) ~ @out
((@in.map({ ... })).grep({ ... })) ~ @out
@out=((@in.map({ ... })).grep({ ... }))
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]({ ... }).grep({ ... })
The only difference
[Note: I originally sent this to Mr. Nobody alone, but that wasn't my
intent. I'm re-sending it here, where I wanted it to go in the first
place. -- bmb]
Mr. Nobody wrote:
trigraphs are actually better, even if you are unicode capable. ~ is
far
easier to type than ctrl-u-15F9E2A01 or
Mr. Nobody wrote:
If you and Damian think you'll get me to leave p6l this easily, forget it.
I've seen far worse flames than that.
While you were the person that Damian lost his sense of humor at, Piers
didn't identify you in this part of the summary. So I don't think Piers
was trying to
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using
unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about
unicode
Luke Palmer wrote:
I would, from the descriptions, imagine that:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
Would parse as:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list;
@list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
Nope. ~ and ~ only *rearrange* arguments, so if you only type @list
once, you can only do things
Dave Whipp wrote:
Something else springs to mind. Consider the Cfor syntax:
for 1,2,3 ~ foo - $a { ... }
Is there any way we could unify these two operators without creating
ambiguities? If we
could, then using straight arrows would be nicer to type than the squiggly
ones.
I think I see
(resent as requested)
James Mastros wrote:
Here's my basic defintion of ID: Two things should have the same ID
if-and-only-if they will behave exactly the same, now and forevermore.
Thus, there should be one ID for all constants of the same value, which
is different from all constants of
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:30:00PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:04:16PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours:
sub square
Luke Palmer wrote:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:49:14 -0700 (MST)
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:48:50 +1100
From: Damian Conway
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:54:12PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-11-06 at 11:43:20, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
a = grades[grep $_ = 90, grades];
b = grades[grep 80 = $_ 90, grades];
c = grades[grep 70 = $_
Piers Cawley wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
@a = @grades[grep $_ = 90, @grades];
@b = @grades[grep 80 = $_ 90, @grades];
@c = @grades[grep 70 = $_ 80, @grades];
Granted, it's fairly compact as it is but I'm
Here's my current understanding of what's under discussion for for-loops:
Larry wants to eliminate the ; from the RHS of the -, so the only thing
for needs to know about the RHS is the number and types of the
arguments. This puts the specification about how to generate those
arguments on the
Larry Wall wrote:
Maybe we should just say that you can put it anywhere that makes sense,
and let the perl parser sort out the sheep from the goats. The basic
rule is that for any op, [op] is also expected in the same place. So
if the user defines a postfix:! for factorial, they automatically
Peter Haworth wrote:
That *is* a logical weakening. Just because the inherited precondition is
C x 10 , doesn't mean that the weakened condition has to be of the form
C x 9 or any other value lower than 10. C a || b is weaker than
C a
So what we are looking at is something like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Trey Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no strict 'refs';
my Date $date;
$date .= 'Sep 21, 1963';
There is a method name there--'Date::Sep 21, 1963'.
But that's my point. You wouldn't have to put the method name or the
class
because the
Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Buddha Buck writes:
I suspect that, if it makes sense to say
$foo = $date.method;
then it would also make sense to say
$date .= $foo;
as well.
Interesting, that first line
$foo = $date.method;
I need a bit of a refresher
At 11:31 AM 06-06-2002 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
#Preliminary Perl6::Regex
# This does not have any actions, but otherwise I think is correct.
# Let me know if it's right or not.
I'm not a regex guru, but...
use 6;
grammar Perl6::Regex {
rule metachar { [{(\[\])}:*+?\\|]
At 01:10 PM 05-21-2002 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 12:57, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Here's an easier one: backslash followed by the delimiter is that thing.
Everything else is literal.
print 'c:\it\'s\easier\to\write\win32\paths\this\way';
print q{this is
At 09:45 AM 04-26-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Tim Bunce writes:
: For perl at least I thought Larry has said that you'll be able to
: create new ops but only give them the same precedence as any one
: of the existing ops.
Close, but not quite. What I think I said was that you can't specify
a
At 08:58 AM 04-23-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Precedence is set with the like' property:
my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is like(but) is inline { $a but $b }
sub operator:also ($a,$b) is like(and) is inline { $a and $b }
OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
At 01:12 PM 04-23-2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
24 levels of precedence should be enough, else you can always resort to
parens.
I would have agreed, except that I would have also said that the 14
precedence levels of C should be enough as well -- yet we seem to have
discovered uses
work perfectly offhand (I suspect some
syntax tweaking would be necessary) but it's the basic idea I think
you are going for.
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I will not die an ironic death -- Scott Ian, lead singer for
the metal band Anthrax, after bioterrorist attacks using
At 11:40 AM 01-25-2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff you wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having things declared outside
the braces be lexical to the braces.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Okay, I'm whipping together the fancy math section of the interpreter
assembly language. I've got:
snip
Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since I've
done numeric work.
Uri mentioned exp(x) = e^x, but I think if you are
At 01:01 PM 08-01-2001 -0600, Sterin, Ilya wrote:
I was just wondering if there will be any solution for the circular
refernece memory leak (I guess you can call it a problem). Can't we keep
information on the number of circular references in the SV structure and
then decrement the references
As a necrohipposadist (beater of dead horses), I'll add...
Sterin, Ilya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well guess not, since something like this...
{
my ($a, $b, $c);
$a = \$b;
$b = \$c;
$c = \$a;
}
would definitelly be hard, resource consuming to implement a circular
At 03:07 PM 07-09-2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:36:17PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Adam Turoff wrote:
Don't laugh. It's here now. It's called XSLT. :-)
Um, that's not what the article was talking about The proposal is to use
an XML
At 03:55 PM 07-09-2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 03:48:27PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
Why can't a general-purpose programming language be augmented with XML for
internal documentation purposes?
You mean like C#? :-)
I wasn't specifically referring to that; I
At 06:54 PM 05-30-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:38:50PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
while pseudocoding something I realized that it would be really
cool if there was another magical default shelf, like $_ or _ but
subtly different, that stores, if
At 01:34 PM 05-18-2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dammit, I got the example exactly backwards. Try this:
$Foo is true;
$Foo = 0;
print Stuff if $Foo; # *WOULD* print - is assigns a
# permanent true property
$Foo as true = ;
$Foo
Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let it be.
Not a flame, but a suggestion:
let $pi be constant;
Personally, I'd rather save let for:
(let ($x,$y,$z,...) = (1,2,3,...) in { ... })
which would be equivilant to:
((sub {my ($x,$y,$z,...) = @_; ... })(1,2,3,...))
Many
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what
At 10:49 AM 05-04-2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
Yes, well, some people want to get rid
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about borrowing from Objective C?
[$object method(foo, bar)];
How do you create an anonymous
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient
Edward Peschko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
beautiful. Then extending this is simple, consistent, easy to read,
compatible with perl5..
I'm not sure that that was the point I was trying to make.
If nothing else, the '.' would then be responsible for *three*
different actions.
At 07:44 PM 04-23-2001 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Hm, I would expect @() in a scalar context to give the
same result as
@tmp = @(...); $x = @tmp;
That is, yeild the number of elements in the list.
I can see this. But unless there is a good reason, that seems like a
less-than-optimal
At 08:36 AM 10/4/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
=head1 TITLE
Perl should use XML for documentation instead of POD
=head1 VERSION
Status: Frozen
I'm sorry, I was gonna bite my lip, but I've gotta say: Freezing RFC's
like this when the following is true:
A lot of good, heated
At 03:35 PM 9/27/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
what's going on.
Yes, but
At 03:26 PM 9/21/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
@x = 3 * @y;
I can see that allowing expressions on @x would require considerable
changes to perl
At 03:35 PM 9/21/00 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
At 03:26 PM 9/21/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
@x = 3 * @y;
What do you think of:
$x[|i] = 3 * $y
At 02:39 AM 9/21/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Thanks, Paris, for your intervention, although I fear it was too late.
Well, since Tom claims to have put me in his kill file, he may never see
this. But for the record...
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Can't we all just play nice?
Apparently
vide two different sets of functionality that
partially overlap.
Comments? Criticism? Complaints?
Later,
Buddha
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony
At 07:29 AM 9/19/00 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
I guess, if I had to write an explanation of pack/unpack based on
my limited understanding, it would be something like:
"Unpack takes binary data in some particular format and
disassembles it, assigning various pieces of it to
At 08:13 AM 9/15/00 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Piers wrote:
I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
base' along the lines of:
use implements 'Interface';
Which is almost entirely like Cuse base 'Interface' but with
'Interface'
At 12:00 AM 9/12/00 +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reading through the examples left me wondering about some
technicalities:
@t[|i;|j] = @a[|j;|i]; # transpose 2-d @a
Written like this it would require that @a is exact 2-dim, i.e. it would
not just swap the
At 09:05 AM 9/6/00 -0400, David Corbin wrote:
I'd suggest also, that (?[) (with no specified brackets) have the
default meaning
of the "four standard brackets" :
(?['('=')','{'='}','['=']',''='')
Note also the subtle syntax change. We are either dealing with strings
or with patterns. The
At 12:50 PM 9/6/00 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
I see barewords as being whatever the programmer wants them to be,
as long as he makes it clear what he expects the word to be before using
it.
So, Copen becomes a legacy constructor and the perl6 version of it would
be something like
my
At 03:40 PM 9/1/00 +0200, Gael Pegliasco wrote:
Arrays are ordered.
Hashes are not.
Neither are sets.
Arrays can have repetitions.
Hashes can not.
Neither can sets.
etc.
--tom
Yes, this is true, but the natural syntax, for me, to manipulate sets,
At 05:35 PM 8/31/00 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Buddha Buck wrote:
The array
syntax would also be useful in multi-dimensional arrays.
That is if multi-dimensional arrays are implemented as lists-of-lists,
which they might not be.
Even if they aren't implemented as lol, they may
At 05:35 PM 8/31/00 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Buddha Buck wrote:
The array
syntax would also be useful in multi-dimensional arrays.
That is if multi-dimensional arrays are implemented as lists-of-lists,
which they might not be.
Even if they aren't implemented as lol, they may
At 12:33 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
You should have a look at the PDL RFC 117 before submitting this.
It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
I just read PDL RFC 117, and your current argument with Dan aside...
I don't see a problem.
Here is the core of
www.shoebox.net
Programmer, System Administrator www.gallanttech.com
--
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the
ix:bounds(3,3,3);" necessary? I don't know about you, but
autovivication of array elements and boundlessness is a feature I like
about perl. Why should "$array[1000] = $x" work without predeclaration
but "$matrix[1000;1000;1000] = $x" shouldn't?
Just my thou
Buddha Buck wrote:
Perhaps someone should RFC the new special variable ME, which is
predefined to be the whole program. Who knows? Perhaps it would then make
sense to use @_ at the top level, as if the program was invoked as
"ME(@ARGV);"...
on -objects it has been propos
At 07:04 PM 8/17/00 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most of the places I've seen them used really well is if
they walk and talk like other forms:
$cgi-param($var, @val); # traditional
$cgi-param($var) = @val; # lvalue, but same thing
I
At 05:49 AM 8/18/00 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
And I keep pointing out that this is only one aspect of lvalue subroutines.
The point of an lvalue subroutine is not to make assignment to the return
value
work, it is to make the return value an *lvalue*. That's a much more general
thing, because
At 10:37 AM 8/16/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"BB" == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BB If we have to pick and epoch in an OS-neutral way, I think I for one
BB would be happy with something like this in the docs for the time
BB functions:
Would you be happy with the follo
.
Leap-seconds are a PITA for generic time routines.
chaim
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment pro
r);
chaim
"BB" == Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BB sub foo : lvalue($newval) {
BB # $newval is a lexical scaler in this block, initialised with a
BB reference
BB # to the value to be assigned to $self{foo}
BB my $self = shift;
BB return $self{foo} unless defined
Buddha Buck wrote:
Or... Let's say you had a 3x3 array implemented as follows:
@array = ( a1, a2, a3,
b1, b2, b3,
c1, c2, c3 );
unzip(3,@array) would return the columns.
partition(3,@array) would return the rows.
Nice example! I think this better
roblem is that local()
changes the value for somewhere else as well as here. Other names
suggested (like "shadow", or "mask") convey that idea better than
"here".
?
-Nate
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just
At 01:11 PM 8/3/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
BTW, I propose that RFCs have a Status: field as part of the VERSION.
Here are some possible values that I can see:
Status: accepted # we all agree that it should go in
Status: rejected # we all agree that it shouldn't go in
Status:
82 matches
Mail list logo
