hanged paths:
M S03-operators.pod
Log Message:
---
Add postfix: to S03
It wasn't mentioned at all before, and since it's at the methodcall
level in rakudo, which may not be expected at first, I figured it was
worth mentioning. It also makes postfix: the only operator at that
paths:
M S03-operators.pod
Log Message:
---
[S03] remove postfix parsing constraint
paths:
M S03-operators.pod
Log Message:
---
[S03] update to current parsing reality (postfix after listop)
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
It's also possible I'm just nuts, and slice context should be a purely
run-time activity.
Reading your explanation of array slice context I missed an
answer to the question how the shape of an array is split
into the contexts of functions called inside .[]. I guess
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
I only mean that you can't simply rewrite
$foo.($bar)
as
$foo.postcircumfix:( ).($bar)
and think you've gotten anywhere, since you'd then have to rewrite it
again:
$foo.postcircumfix:( ).postcircumfix:( ).($bar)
On Apr 6, 2008, at 12:07 , John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
and think you've gotten anywhere, since you'd then have to rewrite it
again:
$foo.postcircumfix:( ).postcircumfix:( ).($bar)
$foo.postcircumfix:( ).postcircumfix:( ).postcircumfix:( )
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: In Question on your last change to S02, Larry Wall wrote:
: (By the way, you'll note the utility of being able to talk about a
: postfix by saying .[], which is one of the reasons we
about a
: postfix by saying .[], which is one of the reasons we allow the optional
: dot there. :)
: : Can I take this as an indication that the rules for postcircumfix
: operators are an extension of the rules for postfix operators?
Yes, postcircumfixes are just strange postfixes
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 06:08:55PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: In Question on your last change to S02, Larry Wall wrote:
: (By the way, you'll note the utility of being able to talk about a
: postfix by saying .[], which is one of the reasons we allow the optional
: dot there. :)
:
: Can I
that's postfix ::, as mentioned in the Names section of S02.
snip
There is no longer any special package hash such as %Foo::. Just
subscript the package object itself as a hash object, the key of which
is the variable name, including any sigil. The package object can be
derived from a type name
There is a typo in S09 (patch included)
Also, S09 uses postfix ... to mean ..Inf but S03 uses ..* for this, so
one of these should likely be changed unless both are OK.
--
Markus Laire
patch-S09
Description: Binary data
U mean something like 'term' (or how this thing is called 'bareword' ? )
So I can say :
# $x = 10k;
my sub operator:number is postfix(k) ($num) {
return $num * 1000
}
# $x = 10K;
my sub operator:number is postfix(K) ($num) {
return $num * 1024
}
#u can say later print $x if $x
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 06:28:42PM +0200, raptorVD wrote:
U mean something like 'term' (or how this thing is called 'bareword' ? )
So I can say :
# $x = 10k;
my sub operator:number is postfix(k) ($num) {
return $num * 1000
}
I think that would be
sub operator:K is postfix
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
One interesting suggestion was to have it as a shorthand for assertion:
sub foo {
(@_ 0)!;
...
}
(Or even have ! be a valid statement terminator, so (@_0)! would work.)
Or you could have it doing
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:22:54 +0100, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
One interesting suggestion was to have it as a shorthand for assertion:
sub foo {
(@_ 0)!;
...
}
(Or even have
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:57:50 +0200, Davíð Helgason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:22:54 +0100, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
One interesting
Simon Cozens wrote:
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
If it wasn't the factorial operator, our math caucus would
be rather unhappy...
--
John Porter
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:47:26AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
If it wasn't the factorial operator, our math caucus would
be rather unhappy...
Good, good. :)
$$y = \pi + 4 x $$, Just another Perl and \TeX\ hacker;
--
Momomoto, Famous Japanese, can swallow his nose.
18 matches
Mail list logo
