HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
Actually, note that both infix:<,> and circumfix:<[ ]> can be used to
build lists; so [1] and [] can be used to construct single-element and
empty lists, respectively.
I doubt that. Actually, circumfix:<[ ]> builds arrays. And note that
there's no infix operator that con
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Jon Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TSa wrote:
>> Ahh, I see. Thanks for the hint. It's actually comma that builds lists.
>> So we could go with () for undef and require (1,) and (,) for the single
>> element and empty list respectively. But then +(1,2,3,()) == 4.
TSa wrote:
> Ahh, I see. Thanks for the hint. It's actually comma that builds lists.
> So we could go with () for undef and require (1,) and (,) for the single
> element and empty list respectively. But then +(1,2,3,()) == 4.
Actually, note that both infix:<,> and circumfix:<[ ]> can be used to
bu
HaloO,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, what am I missing that I see no problem with List
always itemizing to an Array?
A List *does* always itemize to an Array. But parens do not a List
make; the discontinuity mentioned is syntactic.
HaloO,
Damian Conway wrote:
At YAPC::EU I pointed out to Larry that we have an adverbial form that
defaults to true:
:foo
For orthogonality and clarity purposes this could also be written
:?foo
and one that defaults to false:
:!foo
but none that defaults to undef.
After reje
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, what am I missing that I see no problem with List
> always itemizing to an Array?
A List *does* always itemize to an Array. But parens do not a List
make; the discontinuity mentioned is syntactic.
(1,2,3) # (or longer) Lis
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
> As mentioned on irc, it should do the same thing as "foo" => ().
> The question is whether () in item context promotes to []. I don't
> think it ought to, since () is really the only way we have of writing
> NIL in Perl 6, and [] isn't really NIL. And I think it would
HaloO,
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On 2008 Sep 6, at 13:57, Larry Wall wrote:
But basically I think NIL is a mild form of failure anyway, so it's
fine with me if () is a form of failure that is smart enough to be
I'm thinking () is the non-scalar (list, array, capture, maybe hash)
versio
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:30PM +1100, Илья wrote:
: Hello there,
: what :foo<> should exactly produce?
: At first I was expecting:
: foo => ""
: but in Rakudo:
: foo => []
: and it looks like the right thing on the other hand.
At YAPC::EU I pointed out to Larry that we have an adverbial form
On 2008 Sep 6, at 13:57, Larry Wall wrote:
But basically I think NIL is a mild form of failure anyway, so it's
fine with me if () is a form of failure that is smart enough to be
I'm thinking () is the non-scalar (list, array, capture, maybe hash)
version of undef, which acts like a value unle
On Sat, Sep 06, 2008 at 07:06:30PM +1100, Илья wrote:
: Hello there,
: what :foo<> should exactly produce?
: At first I was expecting:
: foo => ""
: but in Rakudo:
: foo => []
: and it looks like the right thing on the other hand.
:
: (I have started this topic in the November mail list
:
http://
11 matches
Mail list logo
