On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
For example, this is guaranteed to have the side effect of running
out of memory before it starts to print anything:
print **1...;
Speaking of which I wonder if it can be detected and cause an error to be
emitted. Which is to say, if it is possible f
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Eric wrote:
I think 'subset' might be a nicer colour for this bikeshed. For an
[snip]
Ehh. By that definition arn't all sets subsets? Anyway I didn't see
It depends on the axiomatic model of your choice. Speaking of which it is
perhaps not terribly OT to discuss here
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
That wasn't the intent; the intent was to define a
"something-or-other" C that represents the fact that whatever
does this sometimes behaves like a complexRectilinear and other times
behaves like a complexPolar. Even the underlying information (the
attr
At 15:59 +0100 11/14/05, Michele Dondi wrote:
>I must say that I didn't follow the discussion (complex) very much. But this
>makes me think of this too: the two representations are handy for different
>calculations. It would be nice if they somehow declared what they can do
>better (or at all) a
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Another possibility is to take $? away from the compiler. All the
compiler variables could go under $= instead, since pod is actually
just one particular kind of compiler-time data, and there's really
no particular mnemonic relationship between ? and the compiler.
But $
Doug McNutt wrote:
> As for complex operations which have multiple results I think a principle
> value approach makes more sense than a list. It's well established for the
> inverse trigonometric functions. Leave RootOf( ) to Maple and Mathematica.
In the hypothetical module that I'm describing, t
Jonathan Lang wrote:
In the hypothetical module that I'm describing, the principle value
approach _would_ be used - in scalar context. The only time the "list
of all possible results" approach would be used would be if you use
list context. If you have no need of the list feature, then you don
