The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20021027
You may have noticed that this summary is late. Um... [looks sheepish,
shuffles feet], the dog ate my homework. I did a tiny bit of
procrastination at the beginning of the week and then got totally
overtaken by events involving failed
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, it was written:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Ed Peschko wrote:
So again, I don't see the difference between the two. ^[+]= and ^+= are synonyms
as far as I can see, and hence no need for the first form.
Only in the absence of overloading, and only because
Adjusted for the most recent notes: includes «op» as the preferred (and
possibly only) spelling of vectorize. Everything but a few hyperop
issues appears to be close to final, by my count: if/when Larry sticks
a fork() in it, it's done.
hyperoperators:
«op» - When used with any unary or
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 08:02 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
When someone asks what's the boolean type in Perl? I'd rather
answer bit than Perl doesn't have one, if for no other reason
than the latter answer will completely freak them out. :-)
Why? Plenty of languages get along just fine
David Wheeler [mailto:david;wheeler.net] wrote:
The problem with this is that you have explicitly introduced true and
false into the language, and have therefore destroyed the utility of
context:
my boolean $bool = 0; # False.
my $foo = ''; # False context.
if ($foo eq
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 01:38 PM, David Whipp wrote:
Presumably, there exist rules for implicit casting when
comparing objects of different types. If we have a rule
My initial assumption is that nothing would change. Namely, ==
compares numerically, eq compares strings, and '?'
Larry has been consistently using
OxAB op 0xBB
in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
(corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
which is consistent with the iso-8859-1 encoding (despite
the fact that my mailserver or his mailer insists on
labelling those
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 12:21:43PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
++|+^- bitwise (integer) operations
+= +|= +^= = =
I might have missed this, but if + introduces bitwise operations,
why aren't we using it in the shift operations?
++|+^++
Larry Wall writes:
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:51:17AM -0700, John Williams wrote:
Right. ^= is rather pointless, because = already understands list
context.
They're not quite the same because list assignment truncates first. To wit:
a = [1,2,3];
b = [4,5];
a
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:18:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip ...
in that case the vectorization is *compleatly* orthogonal to the
details of op and we even can have something like
@a ^[{ $^a $^b ?? 1 :: ($^a,$^b) := ($^b,$^a) }] @b
I agree with all that you said
Ed Peschko writes:
I agree with all that you said above, I'm just saying we should make typing []
*optional*. 99% of the time, people are not going to need it, as they are not
defining their own operators as you did above.
Ed
long ago ( when xor was ! and ^ was called hyper )
See
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-internals;perl.org/msg11308.html
for a closely-related discussion.
/s
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, David Whipp wrote:
In Perl6, everything is an object. So almost everything is
neither a number nor a string. It probably doesn't make sense
to cast things to
12 matches
Mail list logo
