On 21 Apr, fayland wrote:
: It has been published at perl6.language, but have no reply.
That was to be expected, as it's no language-design specific issue,
and therefore, unsuitable for p6l.
: In perl v5.8.6 built for MSWin32-x86-multi-thread:
:
: my $i = 1;
: print $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
: my $i
Steven Philip Schubiger skribis 2005-04-25 5:41 (+0200):
That was to be expected, as it's no language-design specific issue,
and therefore, unsuitable for p6l.
: print ++$i, $i++; # 3 2
You're misleaded here, by thinking, scalar context is being enforced,
which is not the case; the results
On 25 Apr, Juerd wrote:
: I don't know how it's called on other levels, but we're still calling
: that list|slurpy|plural context. array context looks too much like
: Array context, which is something else.
I confess, it's likely a bad habit, to coin it array context on
p6l, although it refers
Steven Philip Schubiger skribis 2005-04-25 18:44 (+0200):
I confess, it's likely a bad habit, to coin it array context on
p6l, although it refers to Perl 5, where it I have seen it more than
once - perhaps, overly abused too.
That's old Perl5-ese. There was a big jargon change when people
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:32:41PM +0800, fayland wrote:
It has been published at perl6.language, but have no reply.
In perl v5.8.6 built for MSWin32-x86-multi-thread:
my $i = 1;
print $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
my $i = 1;
print ++$i, $i++; # 3 2
in pugs:
my $i = 1;
say $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I understand the implementation details leading to each
behaviour, but rather than saying which was right, I think I'd be
quite happy to see Perl6 copy (the ideas behind) C's rules regarding
sequence points and undefined behaviour. I'm not so
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 04:32:41PM +0800, fayland wrote:
It has been published at perl6.language, but have no reply.
In perl v5.8.6 built for MSWin32-x86-multi-thread:
my $i = 1;
print $i++, ++$i; # 1 3
my $i = 1;
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
It certainly makes more sense to me that the answer would be 2 2. But
however it ends up, so long as we know what the answer will be, we can
utilize it effectively in our programs.
The trick with this construct usually in C is
