On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:36:33 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> If we had some kind of partitioning operator, it'd probably be generalized
> to sorting into bins by number, where 0 and 1 are degenerate cases for
> booleans. But since we'd almost certainly make the general form
>
> (@bin0, @bin1,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:41:33PM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > The name is relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things.
: > I'm more worried about the fact that it's difficult to partition a
: > list into multiple lists in one pass w
2005/11/18, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The name is relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things.
> > I'm more worried about the fact that it's difficult to partition a
> > list into multiple lists in one pass without declaring
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The name is relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things.
> I'm more worried about the fact that it's difficult to partition a
> list into multiple lists in one pass without declaring temp arrays.
Didn't the list agree long ago on a `part` builtin?
Larry Wall wrote:
> If we had some kind of partitioning operator, it'd probably be generalized
> to sorting into bins by number, where 0 and 1 are degenerate cases for
> booleans.
Cool!
This doesn't solve the general case, but how about a left-side zip:
zip( @keys, @values ) = %hash;
zip( @e
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-18 11:36 (-0800):
> In Perl 5, to set a slice, you have to write
> %hash{ @keys } = @values;
"@"... :)
> whereas in Perl 6, it'd be nice to be able to say that with all
> the keys and values on the right side somehow.
Shouldn't a simple
%hash = @keys Y @values
