David Green schreef:
> Jonathan Lang:
>> (In fact, the semantics for "@x[*+n]" follows directly from the fact
>> that an array returns the count of its elements in scalar context.)
>> And "@x[*]" would be the same as "@x[0..^*]" or "@x[0..(*-1)]".
>
> That's an elegance in its favour.
In Perl5 a
On 3/7/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Looks good to me.
As well, the fact that @x[-1] doesn't refer to the element
immediately before @x[0] is awkward, as is the fact that @x[*-1]
doesn't refer to the element immediately before @x[*+0]. IMHO, it
would be cleaner to have @x[n] count forward and
OK: before I submit a patch, let me make sure that I've got the
concepts straight:
"@x[0]" always means "the first element of the array"; "@x[-1]" always
means "the last element of the array"; "@x[*+0]" always means "the
first element after the end of the array"; "@x[*-1]" always means "the
first
Jonathan Lang skribis 2007-03-06 13:35 (-0800):
> Could someone advise me on how to create patches?
Single file:
diff -u oldfile newfile
Entire tree:
diff -Nur oldtree/ newtree/
See also diff(1), and note that when diffing trees, you want to
distclean them first :)
--
korajn salutojn,
Larry Wall wrote:
I like it. I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment, but if you send
me a patch for S09 I can probably dig up a program to apply it with. :)
Could someone advise me on how to create patches?
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
I like it. I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment, but if you send
me a patch for S09 I can probably dig up a program to apply it with. :)
Larry
On 2/27/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
David Green wrote:
So I end up back at one of Larry's older ideas, which basically is:
[] for counting, {} for keys.
What if you want to mix the two? "I want the third element of row
5". In my proposal, that would be "@array[5, *[2]]"; in your
proposal, ther
David Green wrote:
On 2/24/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
>In effect, using * as an array of indices gives us the ordinals
>notation that has been requested on occasion: '*[0]' means 'first
>element', '*[1]' means 'second element', '*[-1]' means 'last
>element',
>'*[0..2]' means 'first three elements',
On 2/24/07, Jonathan Lang wrote:
In effect, using * as an array of indices gives us the ordinals
notation that has been requested on occasion: '*[0]' means 'first
element', '*[1]' means 'second element', '*[-1]' means 'last
element',
'*[0..2]' means 'first three elements', and so on - and this
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
> : If you want the last index, say '*[-1]' instead of '* - 1'.
> : If you want the first index, say '*[0]' instead of '* + 0'.
>
> So the generic version of leaving off both ends would be *[1]..*[-2]
> (ignoring that we'd probably write *[0]^..^*[-1] for t
On 2/23/07, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'> I'm still debating the boolean context myself. I _think_ it will
work; but I have a tendency to miss intricacies. You might instead
want to require someone to explicitly check for definedness or
existence instead of merely truth; or you mi
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:49:34AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: That said, I think I can do one better:
:
: Ditch all of the above. Instead, '*' always acts like a list of all
: valid indices when used in the context of postcircumfix:<[ ]>.
Ooh, shiny! Or at least, shiny on
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:49:34AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: That said, I think I can do one better:
:
: Ditch all of the above. Instead, '*' always acts like a list of all
: valid indices when used in the context of postcircumfix:<[ ]>.
Ooh, shiny! Or at least, shiny on the shiny side...
From S09:
"When you use * with + and -, it creates a value of Whatever but Num,
which the array subscript interpreter will interpret as the subscript
one off the end of that dimension of the array."
"Alternately, *+0 is the first element, and the subscript dwims from
the front or back depending
14 matches
Mail list logo
