On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Or RPN-like:
$x #= 2* 1+ 3/;
Being a big fan of RPN myself (and considering it quite natural), I'd
appreciate very much such a feature. I had asked myself about RPN features
in P6, albeit in a probably unreasonable fashion:
http://www.nntp.pe
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Christopher D. Malon wrote:
For the non-mathematically inclined:
A field is a set with two binary operations, + and *.
Under either operation (+ or *), the set is an abelian (= commutative) group,
and a field has a distributive property: a * (b + c) = a*b + a*c.
An easy exam
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, John Williams wrote:
But IMHO the reduction in typing for this relatively minor issue is not
really worth the surprise to newbies at seeing operandless operators.
I don't buy that argument as newbies are already exposed to all sorts of
surprises including operandless oper
On 11/1/05, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Kinyon wrote:
> > > 1. choose one of a set of available methods to call its own.
> > > 2. create a version of its own.
> > > 3. pass the buck.
> >
> > #1 and #2 are identical. Stevan and I have always viewed #1 as a
> > special case of #2.
On 11/2/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, John Williams wrote:
>
> > But IMHO the reduction in typing for this relatively minor issue is not
> > really worth the surprise to newbies at seeing operandless operators.
>
> I don't buy that argument as newbies are alrea
Michele Dondi:
> Ruud H.G. van Tol:
>> Or RPN-like:
>>
>> $x #= 2* 1+ 3/;
>
> Being a big fan of RPN myself (and considering it quite natural), I'd
> appreciate very much such a feature. I had asked myself about RPN
> features in P6, albeit in a probably unreasonable fashion:
>
> http://www.nntp.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, John Williams wrote:
> > But IMHO the reduction in typing for this relatively minor issue is not
> > really worth the surprise to newbies at seeing operandless operators.
>
> I don't buy that argument as newbies are already exposed to
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 11:46 -0700, John Williams wrote:
> It is not so much an operator, as it is a subroutine with really strange
> syntax, and the side-effect of changing the $_ variable. You need to use
> an operator to get it to affect a different variable.
operators _are_ subroutines. There
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 09:03 -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> I think the difference comes from the Principle of Least Surprise. The
> various operators being discussed in this thread are all operators
> which are in languages that have common use - C, C++, Java, the .Net
> stack, etc. Regexen and the var
Sam Vilain skribis 2005-11-03 11:01 (+1300):
> Does ++; mean &postfix:<++> or &prefix:<++> ?
I no longer think $_ defaulting for mutating ops is a good idea, but to
answer your question, read the original post: all these would imply the
LHS, so that makes ++ postfix.
Juerd
--
http://convolutio
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:02:04PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> True enough; but it needn't be true that d have the same tools
> available to resolve the conflicts that c has.
>
> There are three ways that a role can deal with a conflict:
>
> 1. choose one of a set of available methods to call i
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 16:37:29 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:02:04PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > True enough; but it needn't be true that d have the same tools
> > available to resolve the conflicts that c has.
> >
> > There are three ways that a role can dea
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> People keep using the word "hierarchy" when talking about roles and I
> keep thinking that it is the one word that definitely does NOT apply.
> Heirarchies are for classes and inheritance relationships, not roles
> and composition.
>
> In my world view, a role that is c
On 11/2/05, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say you have this:
>
> role A {method foo() { code1; } }
> role B {method foo() { code2; } }
> role C does A does B {
> method foo() { A::foo(); }
> method bar() { B::foo(); }
> }
>
> Should the following be valid?
>
> r
14 matches
Mail list logo
