On 2010-07-28 06:54, Martin D Kealey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Michael Zedeler wrote:
Writing for ($a .. $b).reverse - $c { ...} may then blow up because it
turns out that $b doesn't have a .succ method when coercing to sequence
(where the LHS must have an initial value), just like
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense
Dave Whipp wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Then the whole question
Dave Whipp wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
as a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
should be unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Sorry, I have
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for
yary wrote:
though would a parallel batch of an anonymous block be more naturally written
as
all(0...10) - $x { ... } # Spawn 11 threads
No,
hyper for 0..10 - $x { ... } # spawn as many threads
# as the compiler thinks are reasonable
I think one (already specced) syntax for the
On Wednesday, 28. July 2010 05:12:52 Michael Zedeler wrote:
Writing ($a .. $b).reverse doesn't make any sense if the result were a
new Range, since Ranges should then only be used for inclusion tests (so
swapping endpoints doesn't have any meaningful interpretation), but
applying .reverse
Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from to ||:
$a .. $b # means $a = $_ $_ = $b if $a $b
$b .. $a # means $b = $_ || $_ = $a if $a $b
I think that's what not, ! are for!
TSa wrote:
Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from to ||:
$a .. $b # means $a = $_ $_ = $b if $a $b
$b .. $a # means $b = $_ || $_ = $a if $a $b
This is the same sort of discontinuity of meaning
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
help it.
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields cjfie...@illinois.edu wrote:
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
+1. I'm agnostic ;
Militant? :) ( http://tinyurl.com/3xjgxnl )
Nothing inherently religious about
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
Was my specific proposal entirely
Dave Whipp wrote:
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) - $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
No sarcasm
Moritz Lenz wrote:
I fear what Perl 6 needs is not to broaden the range of discussion even
further, but to narrow it down to the essential points. Personal opinion
only.
OK, as a completely serious proposal, the semantics of for 0..10 { ...
} should be for the compiler to complain sorry,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
is treated as
for
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed. ..
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and ... is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed. ..
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and ... is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes,
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed. ..
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and ... is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes, commas and the basic, C-derived math and logic ops.
Darren Duncan wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think .. and ... are reversed.
snip
I would rather that .. stay with intervals and ... with generators.
snip
Another thing to consider if one is looking at huffmanization is how often the
versions that exclude
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 - $x { ... }
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say 0.0 .. 1.0 instead.
-- Darren Duncan
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say 0.0 .. 1.0 instead.
-- Darren Duncan
That would be inconsistent. $x ~~ 0..1 means 0 = $x = 1. The fact
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name
wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name
wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of
Darren Duncan wrote:
Does ... also come with the 4 variations of endpoint inclusion/exclusion?
If not, then it should, as I'm sure many times one would want to do this,
say:
for 0...^$n - {...}
You can toggle the inclusion/exclusion of the ending condition by
choosing between ... and ...^;
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include æther?
This is where Germans and Swedes, for example, don't agree, but they're all
On 2010-07-29 00:24, Dave Whipp wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp d...@dave.whipp.name
wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have
0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
should be
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include æther?
This is where Germans and Swedes, for
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
notion that aardvark..apple can be used to match any word in the
dictionary that comes between those two words.
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields cjfie...@illinois.edu wrote:
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
+1. I'm agnostic ;
Militant? :) (
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang datawea...@gmail.com wrote:
Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
help it.
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
On 2010-07-29 02:19, Jon Lang wrote:
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
notion that aardvark..apple can be used to match any word in the
Jon Lang wrote:
I don't know enough about Unicode to suggest how to solve this. All I can
say is that my example above should never return a valid Range object unless
there is a way I can specify my own ordering and I use it.
That actually says something: it says that we may want to reconsider
On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, a..b includes aardvark.
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued
use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does a .. b include
æther?
35 matches
Mail list logo
