You shouldn't be able to reopen/clobber an existing class/module unless
you specify
class Object is augmented {...}
class Object is replaced {...}
or some such (the trait names are still negotiable). In general,
private classes should start with "my" or "our", though I don't know
if Pugs
Hey,
Found out this morning that wizard.p6 suddenly stopped wondering and I was
stumped as to why. The autrijus came along and pointed out that i was
defineing an Object class of my own. This was obliterating the built in
class causing all other classes to fail to work at all. It would seem fro
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > @matrix... = <<1 0 0 1>>;
>
> In the case of:
>
> @matrix = <<1 2 3 4 5>>;
>
> You need only add the type:
>
> int @matrix = <<1 2 3 4 5>>;
> There is no string phase, or at least should never be.
> The compiler can
> pre-compute the
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 18:23, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > @matrix... = <<1 0 0 1>>;
> Keep in mind that you're using a quoting operator. For numbers, you can just
> use (0, 1, 2, 3)
> and probably be better understood. (The <> approach will
> work, but it will take all the numbers through a str
Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Abhijit A. Mahabal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:13 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Array/Hash Slices, multidimensional
> >
> >
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhijit A. Mahabal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Array/Hash Slices, multidimensional
>
>
> As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good t
As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good time to
ask if the following will be supported in some form:
If I have some structure like %foo{"monday"}, %foo{"tuesday"} etc,
I can set their values enmass using:
%foo<> = <>;
What if I had
%foo{"monday"}{"food_ex
> [run time control of assignment behavior when array contains pairs]
How much have I misunderstood things from a mechanisms
available point of view (as against a practical / nice way to
do things) when I suggest something along the lines of:
my sub op:= (*@list : %adverbs) {
...
At 8:48 AM -0600 9/3/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Hmm... I think I'd rather see
>>
>>my $foo is Bag = @array.as('Bag');
>>
>> The idea being that one could treat hashes and arrays as syntactic
>> vitamins meaning 'Dictionary' (to use the Smalltalk term) and
>> 'OrderedCollection', but all Co
> Hmm... I think I'd rather see
>
> my $foo is Bag = @array.as('Bag');
>
> The idea being that one could treat hashes and arrays as syntactic
> vitamins meaning 'Dictionary' (to use the Smalltalk term) and
> 'OrderedCollection', but all Collections would implement an C
> method allowing conve
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
>
>> but what simon was saying (and i agree) is the the pair IS a single
>> item. it becomes the key and its value is 'scalars'.
>
> No. If it's a PAIR, then its key is the key and its value is the value.
>
>
>> hashes can now take ob
David Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Maybe we should just say 'sod it' and implement the entire Smalltalk
>> Collection hierarchy and have done with it? Sets, bags, hashes
>> (dictionaries for the Smalltalker), whatever, all have their uses...
>
> I'm not sure if you w
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> >> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
> >>
> >> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a prope
Uri Guttman wrote:
> but what about mixing pairs and scalars which was the core of this
> thread?
Then you get whatever behaviour you defined the hash to give.
> by default it seems assigning such a list to a hash would use
> the pairs as 2 elements
It's not the right way to think about wha
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> so what that attribute does is force the hash to keep all pairs as
>> single objects. but what about run time control of it? sometimes you
>> might want a list of pairs to be handled like pairs and other tim
Uri Guttman wrote:
> so what that attribute does is force the hash to keep all pairs as
> single objects. but what about run time control of it? sometimes you
> might want a list of pairs to be handled like pairs and other times you
> want pairs to be scalars in a hash assignment. is there any wa
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
>> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
>>
>> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a property that marks
>> its keys as being objects, not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
>
> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a property that marks
> its keys as being objects, not strings:
>
> my %hash is keyed(REF);
>
> And, even if that's the d
Uri Guttman wrote:
> but what simon was saying (and i agree) is the the pair IS a single
> item. it becomes the key and its value is 'scalars'.
No. If it's a PAIR, then its key is the key and its value is the value.
> hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
Correct.
> "KF" == Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
KF> Simon Cozens wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
>>
%hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
>>>
>>> That's perfectly okay (except you forgot the quotes around the
>>> and you have an odd
Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
>
>>> %hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
>>
>>That's perfectly okay (except you forgot the quotes around the
>>and you have an odd number of elements initializing the hash).
>
> Urgh, no. Either a pair is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > %hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
>
> That's perfectly okay (except you forgot the quotes around the
> and you have an odd number of elements initializing the hash).
Urgh, no. Either a pair is an atomic entity or it isn't.
Nicholas Clark asked:
>%hash3 = @kv_array
>
> Is perl6 going to spot that @kv_array has an even number of entries, all
> are scalars (no pairs), and so do this
>
>for @kv_array -> key, value {
>%hash3{$key} = $value;
>}
Yes. Just like in Perl 5.
> Or is it going to treat
From: "Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In Damian's excellent perl6 talk, I think he said that by default a hash
> in list context will return a list of pairs. Hence this
>
>@array = %hash
>
> for %hash with n keys would give an array of n element
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Maybe we should just say 'sod it' and implement the entire Smalltalk
> Collection hierarchy and have done with it? Sets, bags, hashes
> (dictionaries for the Smalltalker), whatever, all have their uses...
I'm not sure if you were being facetious, but I do think all the
funct
Steffen Mueller
> > %hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
>1 23 4 5
> Perl5 says "Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1."
> And Perl6 should, too.
Hmm, I rather like the idea of thinking of a %foo variable as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steffen Mueller) writes:
> > %hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
>1 23 4 5
> Perl5 says "Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1."
> And Perl6 should, too.
Except that a pair is a single th
Nicholas Clark wrote:
[...]
> And what happens if I write
>
> %hash4 = ("Something", "mixing", pairs => and, "scalars");
1 23 4 5
Perl5 says "Odd number of elements in hash assignment at -e line 1."
And Perl6 should, too.
IMHO, your example isn't
In Damian's excellent perl6 talk, I think he said that by default a hash
in list context will return a list of pairs. Hence this
@array = %hash
for %hash with n keys would give an array of n elements, all pairs.
If you want the perl5 tradition of a list alternating key,value,key,
t: 07/24/2001 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
"Sterin, Ilya" wrote:
> But now I am trying to figure out, if you are not comparing elements
of the
> array and for example if you need to loop through 3 arrays at the same
time,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 5:50 AM
> To: Sterin, Ilya; 'raptor '; Perl 6 Language
> Subject: RE: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
>
>
> "
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 5:50 AM
> To: Sterin, Ilya; 'raptor '; Perl 6 Language
> Subject: RE: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
>
>
> "
"Sterin, Ilya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just one question, how
> would merge behave on two different sized arrays.
>
> @a = (1..5);
> @b = (1..10);
> merge(@a, @b);
>
> ##Would return (1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,??
>
> Would it stop on the shortest array. Couldn't quite find such explanat
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeremy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:40 PM
> To: Sterin, Ilya; 'raptor '; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
>
>
> "Ste
"Sterin, Ilya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm. Didn't think about that. That would be a nice way, that way you can
> manipulate it's behaviour depending with how many aliases you provide.
>
> for my $el1, $el2 ( (@foo, @bar) ) {
> print "$el\n"
> }
>
> $el1 and $el2 would of course be ali
"John Porter" wrote:
> Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> > Don't really know which would be more helpful, since I first need to
find a
> > scenerio where I would use this facility, then what result would I
expect
> > once the shortest list runs out.
>
> Let us ask the PDL folks.
>
> In fact, I'm quite sure th
Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> Don't really know which would be more helpful, since I first need to find a
> scenerio where I would use this facility, then what result would I expect
> once the shortest list runs out.
Let us ask the PDL folks.
In fact, I'm quite sure this has been done already.
--
Jo
s out. Do I still need the values of the longer
list, for one reason or another, or do I want the loop aborted?
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: David L. Nicol
To: Sterin, Ilya
Cc: 'raptor '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Sent: 07/20/2001 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: array/hash manipulatio
On Friday, July 20, Ilya Sterin wrote:
>No, I don't think you are understanding it correctly. It's not about
>looping sequentially, but rather simultaneouly, for comparison purposes.
>
>@foo = (1,2,3);
>@bar = (1,2,3);
>for my ($foo, $bar) (@foo, @bar) #As the index for @foo increases, so
>
#does @bar index
{
print "OK\n" if $foo == $bar;
}
Will print...
OK
OK
OK
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: Eric Roode
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/20/2001 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
on Fri Jul 20, Mark REED wrote:
>I&#x
ed
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Sent: 07/20/2001 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 11:17:13AM -0600, Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> But this will be flattened, so I would think
>
> for my($key, $val)(%my_hash)
>
on Fri Jul 20, Mark REED wrote:
>I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is a big improvement over the
>current version:
>
>while (my ($key, $val) = each %my_hash)
>{ ... }
And a workalike to
while ( ($a,$b,$c) = (@a, @b, @c) )
or
for my ($el1, $el2) (@foo, @bar)
is very e
Well, other than the fact that the while(each) doesn't do aliasing.
Since that would be the whole point, ignore that last message.
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:21:57PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 11:17:13AM -0600, Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> > But this will be flattened, so I wo
ooops I forgot if the vars in for are aliesed then it will be ok for using
it like 'with' :
for my $el ( $Request->{Param} ) {
print $el{qsParam1}
print $el{qsParam2}
}
but then what will be $_ ... alias OR copy !?! :") I mean mostly backward
compatibility...
One other way is 'local' to
On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 11:17:13AM -0600, Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> But this will be flattened, so I would think
>
> for my($key, $val)(%my_hash)
> { ... }
>
> Would be a great convenience. $key and $val being aliased accordingly.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is a big improvement over the
But this will be flattened, so I would think
for my($key, $val)(%my_hash)
{ ... }
Would be a great convenience. $key and $val being aliased accordingly.
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: raptor
To: Sterin, Ilya; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/20/2001 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: array/hash manipul
> Hmmm. Didn't think about that. That would be a nice way, that way you can
> manipulate it's behaviour depending with how many aliases you provide.
>
> for my $el1, $el2 ( (@foo, @bar) ) {
> print "$el\n"
> }
>
> $el1 and $el2 would of course be aliases, right?
]- yes ALIASING will be bett
a
-Original Message-
From: raptor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/20/2001 3:37 AM
Subject: Re: array/hash manipulation [was :what's with 'with'?]
> So my initial code (which I modified a little...)
>
> for ( @foo, @bar ) {
> print "$_[0] : $_[1]\n";
hould be done via these proposed functions.
>
> PS. I was thinking of that before, what if we have something let's call it
> 'transform' for transformation of any structure to other structure.. but
as
> i thought it should combine in some way the features of
> switc
raptor wrote:
>
> for my $el1, $el2 ( @foo, @bar ) {
Hopefully you mean
for my $el1, my $el2 ( @foo, @bar ) {
or maybe
for [ my $el1, my $el2 ] ( @foo, @bar ) {
And yes, it's an old idea.
> PS. I was thinking of that before, what if we have something let's call it
> 'transform' for
l.org/rfc/148.pod
so may be what must be the order of passing the arguments and other stuff
should be done via these proposed functions.
PS. I was thinking of that before, what if we have something let's call it
'transform' for transformation of any structure to other structure.. but a
51 matches
Mail list logo
