David Christensen wrote:
I definitely like the hyper stuff how it is; maybe the answer is to
just define an infix:[[]] operator which returns the crosswise slice
of a nested list of lists. In any case it could be shunted aside to
some package and certainly does not need to be in core.
Didn't
Roger Hale wrote:
One set of cases that doesn't seem to have come up in discussion:
(1, 3, 2) - (83, 84, 81, 80, 85)
Should this give
(-82, -81, -79, -80, -85)
From an arithmetic point of view it should be exactly that. The
implementation might need to morph the code though, see below.
as
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:10:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I think I have to clarify what I mean by that last phrase. Trailing
delimiters are hidden inside any token that has already been started,
but not at the start of a token (where token is taken to be fairly
restrictive). Therefore
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 01:31:12AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:10:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I think I have to clarify what I mean by that last phrase. Trailing
: delimiters are hidden inside any token that has already been started,
: but not at the start of a
Two things popped up while implementing a demo version of alarm() today.
1. In perl5 and in most underlying libraries, alarm() has 1 second
granularity (and a possible 1 second error on top of that). Can we have
the alarm builtin not assume the worst, and take a Num instead of an
Int, so that on
: But when you start interpolating, you get into a big mess:
: h\qq[$interpolated] = want(); # ???
: h$foo = want(); # ???
I think that, as with functions called in unknown context, we should
just force the RHS here to list context, and rely on the RHS to add
extra context as necessary if
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 11:23:34PM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: : But when you start interpolating, you get into a big mess:
: : h\qq[$interpolated] = want(); # ???
: : h$foo = want(); # ???
:
: I think that, as with functions called in unknown context, we should
: just force the RHS here
LW = Larry Wall
AT = Autrijus Tang
LW I think I have to clarify what I mean by that last phrase. Trailing
LW delimiters are hidden inside any token that has already been started,
LW but not at the start of a token (where token is taken to be fairly
LW restrictive).
AT Consider this:
AT
AT
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 11:23:34PM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
That makes sense, but that would make
%num_of_linesfile = @file
not DWIM... of course that would translate into
%num_of_linesfile = scalar @file
so maybe that's OK.
In order to promote proper syntactical thinking, note that
I'm looking in S09, and reading about junctions. It seems to me that
if we have a junction $j which we use to index into an array or a hash,
it should DWIM and return a junction of the corresponding values.
@ar=[1..10];
%hash=(a=1,b=4,c=7);
$j=1|2|3;
$k=a|c;
$u = @ar[$j]; # 2|3|4
$v =
David Christensen writes:
I'm looking in S09, and reading about junctions. It seems to me that
if we have a junction $j which we use to index into an array or a hash,
it should DWIM and return a junction of the corresponding values.
@ar=[1..10];
%hash=(a=1,b=4,c=7);
$j=1|2|3;
$k=a|c;
On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 06:44:55PM -0400, Kurt Hutchinson wrote:
: On Mon, Apr 18, 2005 at 11:23:34PM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: That makes sense, but that would make
: %num_of_linesfile = @file
: not DWIM... of course that would translate into
: %num_of_linesfile = scalar @file
: so
Hypothetical here:
If we want to calculate a set of values for a junction which map nicely
to a range with a few outliers, would it be possibly to have a
qualifier :except which allows us to make exceptions to our given
range? I.e.,
(Ignore for the moment the inefficiency of the choice of
David Christensen writes:
Hypothetical here:
If we want to calculate a set of values for a junction which map nicely
to a range with a few outliers, would it be possibly to have a
qualifier :except which allows us to make exceptions to our given
range? I.e.,
(Ignore for the moment
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 12:02:45AM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: But rx:P5// should act like qr//, shouldn't it?
Yes.
: LW I suspect we can check after the $ for ), ], |, #, whitespace, or the
: LW terminator, which rules out direct use of $/ inside /.../.
: I'll add a flag for that in rx:P5. In
The following is legal perl:
print $a $b $c if ($a,$b,$c)=(1,2,3);
This prints 1 2 3, but the definitions obviously aren't scoped to the
modified statement. And a Cmy in the modifier is a bit too late.
Any reason to [not] add a Cwhere statement modifier which restricts
the scope of the
--- David Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking in S09, and reading about junctions. It seems to me
that if we have a junction $j which we use to index into an array
or a hash, it should DWIM and return a junction of the corresponding
values.
@ar=[1..10];
%hash=(a=1,b=4,c=7);
Paul Hodges writes:
Maybe, but I don't like returning junctures in those cases unless you
*explicitly* ask for it. I'd rather the default be the arbitrary lists
returned, or whatever fits the context. How about
@ar=[a..z];
%hash=(a=1,b=4,c=7);
$j=1|2|3;
@j = (1,2,3);
$k=a|c;
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- David Christensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking in S09, and reading about junctions. It seems to me
that if we have a junction $j which we use to index into an array
or a hash, it should DWIM and return a junction of the corresponding
values.
@ar=[1..10];
19 matches
Mail list logo
