HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
The operator iterates each function until the function fails to
produce any list elements
What is the list type these days? It used to be List for writeable
lists and Seq for readonly ones. But isn't the latter superseded by
Capture? I would think it handy to have
TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
The operator iterates each function until the function fails to
produce any list elements
What is the list type these days? It used to be List for writeable
lists and Seq for readonly ones.
Array = mutable
List = immutable, lazy
Seq = immutable,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 08:19:42PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Log:
: Add missing series operator, mostly for readability.
:
: Is there a way for the continuing function to access its index as well
: as, or instead of, the values of one or more
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:09:55AM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 08:19:42PM -0700, Jon Lang wrote:
: : [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : Log:
: : Add missing series operator, mostly for readability.
: :
: : Is there a way for the continuing function to
Author: larry
Date: Sun Oct 5 17:05:41 2008
New Revision: 14586
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Add missing series operator, mostly for readability.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
==
---
On Sun, 2008-10-05 at 17:05 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+C infix:... , the series operator.
Lovely, just lovely.
+1, 3, 5 ... *# odd numbers
+1. 2. 4 ... *# powers of 2
Did you mean to use commas on that second line?
-'f
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 09:16:27AM +0800, Xiao Yafeng wrote:
: +
: +The function may choose to terminate its list by returning ().
: +Since this operator is list associative, an inner function may be
: +followed by a C... and another function to continue the list,
: +and so on. Hence,
: +
:
On Sun, Oct 05, 2008 at 07:31:30PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: @seq := 1 ... { $_ + 1 if @seq 10 }
Actually, that one might not work, since we can't find the length of
@seq without knowing how many value the closure will generate. The
implicit version would not have that problem.
Larry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
Add missing series operator, mostly for readability.
Is there a way for the continuing function to access its index as well
as, or instead of, the values of one or more preceding terms? And/or
to access elements by counting forward from the start rather than
