--- TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I must admit that I hardly follow that statement. Why are
> side-effects
> essential to achieve constraint programming and why do you think that
> the way to get at the constraint programming paradigm are the subset
> type definitions?
Because I can't think of
--- TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > In fact, I doubt that there's a way to completely avoid any
> possible
> > side effects on this closures. as the very first line of the
> closure
> > shows:
> >
> >$_.inside_of(...)
> >
> > This is a plain method call, there's no
HaloO,
On Monday, 16. June 2008 10:11:49 Ovid wrote:
> For example, should the pre/postfix '++' be
> listed as having a side-effect?
I think so. But the scope where these side-effects take
place is important as well. In your second example below
the side-effect is restrained to the subs scope. Th
HaloO,
On Monday, 16. June 2008 10:03:13 Ovid wrote:
> --- TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... why do you think that
> > the way to get at the constraint programming paradigm are the subset
> > type definitions?
>
> Because I can't think of any other way to do it :)
So I´ll try to come up with s
HaloO,
On Saturday, 14. June 2008 18:43:05 Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Moritz convinced me that there's actually no real reason to support
>
> $nonlist.listmethod
I wouldn´t do that either. But I come to that conclusion from the
line of thought that it is generally a bad idea to block an Any
slot in
