Today a patch to rakudo brought up the question what split() should do
if the $limit argument is either zero or negative.
In Perl 5 a negative limit means "unlimited", which we don't have to do
because we have the Whatever star. A limit of 0 is basically ignored.
Here are a few solution I could t
split seems to be a suprisingly tricky beast ;-)
To quote S29:
: As with Perl 5's split, if there is a capture in the pattern it
: is returned in alternation with the split values. Unlike with
: Perl 5, multiple such captures are returned in a single Match object.
Unlike in Perl 5, it is not det
HaloO,
Moritz Lenz wrote:
In Perl 5 a negative limit means "unlimited", which we don't have to do
because we have the Whatever star.
I like the notion of negative numbers as the other end of infinity.
Where infinity here is the length of the split list which can be
infinite if split is called
PS Incidentally, it seems silly to have "is rw" but not "is ro". I keep
writing "is ro".
The synopses says "readonly". But now that it is possible, I nominate changing
a hyphen.
I'm not opposed to having it be "ro", but wonder why he didn't call it that in
the first place, so there mu
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> I'm not opposed to having it be "ro", but wonder why he didn't call it that
> in the first place, so there must be a reason.
Nobody's perfect?
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins o
On 2008-Sep-23, at 2:32 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out over
brevity, the flip
side of Huffamn encoding. But that doesn't work out so good for
normal
variable de
On 2008-Sep-23, at 8:38 am, TSa wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
In Perl 5 a negative limit means "unlimited", which we don't have
to do
because we have the Whatever star.
I like the notion of negative numbers as the other end of infinity.
I think positive values and zero make sense. But I don't
David Green wrote:
> On 2008-Sep-23, at 2:32 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
>> it's not
>> thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out over brevity,
>> the flip
>> side of Huffamn encoding. But that doesn't work out so
Michael G Schwern schwern-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
It should be possible to alias it in your own scope easily.
Every time someone replies to a Perl 6 language design nit with "but you can
change the grammar" *I* kill a kitten.
*meowmmmf*
That would not be a change in the gramma
Michael G Schwern schwern-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I'm not opposed to having it be "ro", but wonder why he didn't call it that
in the first place, so there must be a reason.
Nobody's perfect?
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
10 matches
Mail list logo
