Hi
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Thanks,
Alberto
The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
tutorial... but who knows). But that means I must write something which
will work :-)
Of course to write it will take many time, which can give Larry time to
On 14 Aug 2003, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
Hi
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Sometime after perl 5's syntax and features
On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 07:00 AM, Alberto Manuel Brandão
Simões wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:49, Simon Cozens wrote:
Just a hint: don't try writing it and revising it as the language
changes.
I wrote a Perl 6 chapter for a book in December and it is now almost
unusable
due to the
* Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões [15 Aug 2003 00:36]:
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:19, Iain Truskett wrote:
[...]
Much like Perl 6 Essentials then?
I must say that its chapter 4 is the clearest look at
the perl 6 syntax (as it was at the time of writing)
that I've seen yet.
Yeah. I would
On 2003-08-05 at 16:10:46, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 1:02 PM -0700 8/5/03, Dave Whipp wrote:
Can I discriminate on parameter names using multi subs?
Nope. Named parameters don't participate in MMD.
1. I'm thinking MMD should be called something else when being applied
to multisubs rather
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:00:54PM +0100, Alberto Manuel Brand?o Sim?es wrote:
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:49, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
Perl 6 code...
A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a while loop. In general,
where foo, bar, baz, and quux are
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:49, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
tutorial... but who knows). But that means I
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:19:28AM +1000, Iain Truskett wrote:
* Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Aug 2003 00:16]:
[...]
Besides you could always provide online updates to your book as the
language changes. The first (dead tree) edition would be the rough
cut, and later
Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
Perl 6 code...
A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a while
Based on current experience, I'd say about three years after the start
of development for perl7.
=Austin
--- Alberto Manuel Brandão_Simões [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for
Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:19, Iain Truskett wrote:
* Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Aug 2003 00:16]:
[...]
Besides you could always provide online updates to your book as the
language changes. The first (dead tree) edition would be the rough
cut, and later editions would be
Jonadab The Unsightly One wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Did this ever get resolved to anyone's satisfaction? While reading
EX6, I found myself wonder exactly what for() would look like in
Perl 6 code...
A for loop[1] is basically syntax sugar for a while loop. In
* Jonathan Scott Duff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [15 Aug 2003 00:16]:
[...]
Besides you could always provide online updates to your book as the
language changes. The first (dead tree) edition would be the rough
cut, and later editions would be closer to reality as the language
stablizes.
Much like
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Since the A/E gig is where the design team is getting a handle on what it
is they want to be doing and
Sorry to drag out an old conversation, but I was indisposed at the
time, and only just got back to it.
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:07:21PM +0200, Edwin Steiner wrote:
: Edwin Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Disallowing interpolated formats on \F has the additional advantage of
: making
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
tutorial... but who knows). But that means I must write something which
will work :-)
Just a hint:
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, it's possible to have two routines with the same name which
differ by signature... however, in Perl 6, Cfor has only one
signature, and it's the one above. The Cfor loop you are thinking
of is spelled Cloop,
Oh, yes, forgot about that.
To the
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 12:52:42PM +0100, Alberto Manuel Brandão Simões wrote:
Apocalypses and Exegesis are not an 'official' specification for Perl6,
I mean, they are subject to change. Is there any idea when will we have
a freeze on the syntax and features for perl6?
Its scheduled to occur
Fwd from Luke -- he's adopted a retarded MUA.
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:22:05 -0600
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Perl 6's for() signature
Austin Hastings writes:
And you can't do that because the loop has no way of knowing that
Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030703
Ooh look, it's another Perl 6 summary. Doesn't that man ever take a
holiday?
I think he took one last month.
Is it in Esperanto this week?
I don't think so.
Does Leon Brocard get a mention?
It certainly looks that way.
- Original Message -
From: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 5:42 AM
Subject: This Week's Summary
Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030810
Another week, another summary. How predictable is
Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030810
Another week, another summary. How predictable is that?
In keeping with the predictability, we'll start with the internals list.
Set vs. Assign
T.O.G of Spookware has an issue with the way IMCC treats =;
sometimes an = means set and
david nicol wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] perl -le '$_{a}=27; package notmain; print $_{a}'
27
Gosh!
Let's document it! Would it go in perlvar or perlsyn?
It's already documented, in perlvar/Technical Note on the Syntax of Variable Names
(at the end)
25 matches
Mail list logo
