Scott wrote:
I'm just waiting for Damian to speak up :-)
I'm not at all comfortable with the notion of junctions as lvalues.
I've *always* considered a junction to be a special kind of constant, just as
a number or a string or a reference is.
I have trouble with junctive lvalues because I think
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:34:15 +1100
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] Add to Address Book
To: Language List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations (Damian)
Messages are *not* guaranteed to arrive in the order sent
Austin Hastings wrote:
Perhaps we could consider the junctive lvalues as a sort of implied
?= operation:
junction(@list) = value
means
unless junction(@list) == value
{
given junction {
when 'none' { (@list.grep value) = undef; }
when 'any' { for 0 .. random(@list) {
On 2004-06-14 at 22:58:58, Matthew Walton wrote:
'it would be better to explicitly just say
(@list.grep value) = undef
although I think that might be supposed to be
(@list.grep value) »= undef;
Those do different things according to my understanding. The first
removes all matching
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2004-06-14 at 22:58:58, Matthew Walton wrote:
'it would be better to explicitly just say
(@list.grep value) = undef
although I think that might be supposed to be
(@list.grep value) »= undef;
Those do different things according to my understanding. The first
removes all
Well, I'd speak up
for intentionally allowing some silly alternatives
except that's IMO unnecessary.
With all the apparently-wonderful new possibilities
which we'll soon have
(OK, maybe not as soon as we'd like),
it seems most likely
that some will turn out to be silly.
George tim toady
On
Austin Hastings writes:
With Larry's new vectorized sides suggestion, putting a guillemot on
the right side of the operator ...
Austin, we've been through this before -- kindly return that guillemot
to wherever you picked it up from. It's hassle enough having unicode in
Perl, without us all
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:16 PM
To: Austin Hastings
Cc: Larry Wall; Language List
Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations (Damian)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:10:23PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:10:23PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
In reverse order:
%languageometer.values ?+= rand;
This is the same as
all( %languageometer.values ) += rand;
right?
It's the same as
$r = rand;
$_ += $r for %languageometer.values
Your
Austin Hastings writes:
Sortof. I think Larry was implying that rand returned an infinite list
of random numbers in list context. If not, then what he said was wrong,
because it would be sick to say that:
(1,2,3,4,5) + foo()
Calls foo() 5 times.
Why would it be sick, and
Luke Palmer writes:
(1,2,3,4,5) + foo() # Maybe the same as above? What does
infix:+(@list,$scalar) do?
Well, what does a list return in scalar context? In the presence of the
C comma, it returns 5 for the last thing evaluated. In its absence, it
returns 5 for the length.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:28:42PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:10:23PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
In reverse order:
%languageometer.values ?+= rand;
This is the same as
all(
12 matches
Mail list logo
