Audrey Tang audreyt-at-audreyt.org |Perl 6| wrote:
>
> I guess the wording in the last parenthesized parens is insufficiently
> explicit, and maybe we should change it to say that it's really a syntax
> error to use placeholder blocks in statement positions. Sounds reasonable?
>
> Cheers,
> Audrey
Regarding the text just before where you rewrote,
then the compiler adds defaults for you, something like:
-> $x = @foo.shape[0].range,
$y = @foo.shape[1].range { @foo[$x;$y] }
where each such range is autoiterated for you.
That doesn't really work. If
Thom Boyer 提到:
Audrey Tang wrote:
$code = { "a" => 1, $b, $c ==> print };
The examples above are from L.
According to those rules, that last assignment to $code seems to be a
hash, not code. Or does the C<< ==> >> mean that the contents aren't a
list?
Correct, because "==>" binds loos
Nicholas Clark 提到:
So if the semicolon is replaced with a comma, like this,
my @x := [{1+1}, {2+2}];
the {} acts as a hash constructor, and @x is [{2 => undef}, {4 => undef}] ?
No, {} acts as a closure constructor, and @x contains two closures that
returns 2 and 4 respectively when calle
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:57AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Yes, current STD has the inside of () and [] as ,
> which throws away all but the last statement. Arguably [] at least
> should probably be though, and maybe () too.
>
> my @x := [{1+1}; {2+2}]; @x is currently [4], should be [2,
Larry Wall 提到:
> I was originally thinking just loop modifiers, but I suppose
>
> { say $^x } if foo();
>
> also can be made to make some kind of sense, in the same way that
>
> if foo() -> $x { say $x }
>
> is supposed to work.
Right. I've committed the clarification (as a new section
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:43:58AM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
> Larry Wall 提到:
>> Yes, unless we decide we need something like that for list
>> comprehensions. Maybe looping modifiers allow placeholders in what
>> would otherwise be an error...
>
> Sure. How about this:
>
> "
> Use of a placeholde
Larry Wall 提到:
Yes, unless we decide we need something like that for list
comprehensions. Maybe looping modifiers allow placeholders in what
would otherwise be an error...
Sure. How about this:
"
Use of a placeholder parameter in statement-level blocks triggers a
syntax error, because the pa
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 12:04:47AM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: I guess the wording in the last parenthesized parens is insufficiently
: explicit, and maybe we should change it to say that it's really a syntax
: error to use placeholder blocks in statement positions. Sounds reasonable?
Yes, unless
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
> I just finished another pass on S09, and in this posting I note
> editorial issues with the file that can easily be corrected. This is as
> opposed to subjects for deep discussion, which I'll save for later and
> individual posts.
>
> = on Mixing subscripts
> "Within a C<
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
> But about your answer, "automatically called with no arguments". Isn't
> that what a bare closure normally does anyway? Say, I introduced extra
> {} just for scoping or naming the block, where a statement is expected.
>
> foo;
> bar;
> { my $temp= foo; bar(temp); } #forget a
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:37PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: Sanity-check before I check it in?
I'm probably not the best person to ask about *sanity*, but it looks
pretty darn good to me. :)
Larry
Audrey Tang 提到:
> John M. Dlugosz 提到:
>
>> = on Parallelized parameters and autothreading
>>
>> use autoindex;
>> do { @c[$^i, $^j, $^k, $^l] = @a[$^i, $^j] * @b[$^k, $^l] };
>>
>> Shouldn't those be semicolons? Ditto for subsequent examples.
>> Also, what does the "do" do? I think it is
John M. Dlugosz 提到:
> = on Parallelized parameters and autothreading
>
> use autoindex;
> do { @c[$^i, $^j, $^k, $^l] = @a[$^i, $^j] * @b[$^k, $^l] };
>
> Shouldn't those be semicolons? Ditto for subsequent examples.
> Also, what does the "do" do? I think it is only meaningful if there
14 matches
Mail list logo
