Flattening argument lists is not yet working in Pugs, so I can't easily play
around with this one, hence this question.
In Pugs, you can process a simple list of lists like this:
my @lol = ( [ '1a', '1b' ], [ '2a', '2b' ], [ '3a', '3b' ] );
for @lol -> $t { say "1st='$t[0]' 2nd='$t[1]'" }
Yet th
Hi,
Andrew Savige wrote:
> In Pugs, you can process a simple list of lists like this:
>
> my @lol = ( [ '1a', '1b' ], [ '2a', '2b' ], [ '3a', '3b' ] );
> for @lol -> $t { say "1st='$t[0]' 2nd='$t[1]'" }
>
> Yet the $t[0] and $t[1] look untidy to me, so I'd prefer to specify
> that the for closur
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
> The next thing I thought was: hey, argument *passing* is actually
> *binding* to variables in the sub, so why not use the := operator?
> That works very well, because binding as an expression makes no sense
> anyway, it being a language thing. And luckily, named arguments are
>
On 12/22/05, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Suppose I want to navigate a tree and print out info contained in each of
> its leaves along with info gathered from the position in the tree of the
> list itself? Can I do it in a "universal" manner as hinted above that
> would work for other
