On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:52:35PM -0700, Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Ph. Marek writes:
: >I now had a look at http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S06.html
: >but didn't find what I meant. Sorry if I'm just dumb and don't
: >understand you (or S06); I'll try to e
Ph. Marek schreef:
> [Haskell]
> SomeThing a b
> | a = 4 : b+2
> | b = 3 : a+1
> | otherwise : a*b
>
> In Perl5 this looks like
>
> sub SomeThing
> {
> my($a, $b)[EMAIL PROTECTED];
>
> return b+2 if ($a == 4);
> return a+1 if ($b == 3);
> return a*b;
> }
Or like:
sub SomeThing
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 07:52, Trey Harris wrote:
> I don't think you're dumb; the Synopses just require that you intuit
> certain things from each other, from examples in other Synopses, and so on
> in a Perlish sort of way; what you're looking for is not spelled out
> explicitly. It can be
In a message dated Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Ph. Marek writes:
I now had a look at http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S06.html
but didn't find what I meant. Sorry if I'm just dumb and don't
understand you (or S06); I'll try to explain what I mean.
I don't think you're dumb; the Synopses just requ
On Monday 04 September 2006 16:21, Audrey Tang wrote:
> 2006/9/4, Ph. Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Excuse me for getting into this thread with only minor knowledge about
> > perl6, but will there be MMD based on the *value* of parameters? Like
> > Haskell has.
>
> Why, yes, see the various Unpack
2006/9/4, Ph. Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sunday 03 September 2006 14:25, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Note that the variant /with/ the parameter can be considered an exact
> >> match, but but the variant /without/ it can
On Sunday 03 September 2006 14:25, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> > On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Note that the variant /with/ the parameter can be considered an exact
> >> match, but but the variant /without/ it cannot be considered an exact
> >> match.
Excu
Luke Palmer wrote:
> I don't follow your examples. What is the logic behind them?
>
> On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Examples:
>>Arguments (<1 2>) to signatures 1. (@a?) and 2. (@a) calls 2
>
> For example, I would expect this one to be ambiguous, because the 1.
> (@a
I don't follow your examples. What is the logic behind them?
On 9/3/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Examples:
Arguments (<1 2>) to signatures 1. (@a?) and 2. (@a) calls 2
For example, I would expect this one to be ambiguous, because the 1.
(@a?) sub introduces two different si
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it would helpful if the spec addressed "who wins" in MMD when
> optional arguments are present.
>
> I just submitted these failing tests for pugs which illustrate the
> issue.
>
> not ok 11 - Arguments (a => 'b') to signatures 1. () and 2. (*%h) calls 2
Mark Stosberg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think it would helpful if the spec addressed "who wins" in MMD when
> optional arguments are present.
>
> I just submitted these failing tests for pugs which illustrate the
> issue.
>
> not ok 11 - Arguments (a => 'b') to signatures 1. () and 2. (*%h) calls 2
11 matches
Mail list logo
