Re: Landing page for Documentation

Hi El mié., 3 oct. 2018 a las 7:14, Richard Hainsworth () escribió: > I have just started a review of the documentation for perl6. > > When I hit `https://docs.perl6.org/language.html` > I get a list of > sections that is the same as the alphabetical list

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much more than buying a book? Certainly, some people learn better aurally than visually. 

Re: bitwise paper?

On 2018-10-02 9:57 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: Does anyone know of a paper out in web land showing how to do bitwise operations? Trying to AND 0010 with 0001 $ p6 'my $v = 32 & 16; say $v;' If you search docs.perl6.org for "bitwise" you will find "+&":

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much more than buying a book? Certainly, some people learn better aurally than visually. 

Landing page for Documentation

I have just started a review of the documentation for perl6. When I hit `https://docs.perl6.org/language.html` I get a list of sections that is the same as the alphabetical list of pod files in `github.com/perl6/doc/tree/master/doc/Language` without 00-POD6-CONTROL. One of my biggest issues

Re: bitwise paper?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 23:57 ToddAndMargo wrote: > Hi All, > > Does anyone know of a paper out in web land showing how to > do bitwise operations? DuckDuckGo give me tons of hits > for Perl 5. > > Trying to AND 0010 with 0001 > > $ p6 'my $v = 32 & 16; say $v;' > all(32, 16) > >

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

This could only too easily become a flame war, so I am replying once and will not answer again unless it is about substance. The Perl6 community is warm, generous, and intellectually inspiring. Those virtues should be defended against unseemly and intemperate language. Calling a documentation

bitwise paper?

Hi All, Does anyone know of a paper out in web land showing how to do bitwise operations? DuckDuckGo give me tons of hits for Perl 5. Trying to AND 0010 with 0001 $ p6 'my $v = 32 & 16; say $v;' all(32, 16) should give me . I have a nice paper on Perl 5. I don't think

Re: What are the official names?

On 10/2/18 7:38 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote: I just saw that this was already kind of answered in the other thread, sorry about that! It is appreciated anyway! Being smacked from two sides works even better! :-) Any idea what the official name of the crypto line is?

Re: need doc help with []

On 10/2/18 7:32 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote: Hi Todd, On 03/10/2018 02:14, ToddAndMargo wrote: sub postcircumfix:<[ ]>(@container, **@index,     :$k, :$v, :$kv, :$p, :$exists, :$delete) 1  Why the <[]>?  I have always used [] with out the <>.    Why would I want to use one

Re: What are the official names?

I just saw that this was already kind of answered in the other thread, sorry about that!

Re: What are the official names?

On 03/10/2018 01:50, ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 10/2/18 4:47 PM, David Green wrote: >> On 2018-10-02 4:06 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >>> What is the official Perl syntaxland name of the [] subroutine? >> If you search for "[]" at https://docs.perl6.org, it will turn up the >> routine "postcircumfix [

Re: need doc help with []

Hi Todd, On 03/10/2018 02:14, ToddAndMargo wrote: > sub postcircumfix:<[ ]>(@container, **@index, >     :$k, :$v, :$kv, :$p, :$exists, :$delete) > > 1  Why the <[]>?  I have always used [] with out the <>. >    Why would I want to use one over the other? > > 2)  Where does it

Re: join questions

On 10/1/18 4:35 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 04:02:15AM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : Hi All, : : https://docs.perl6.org/routine/join#(List)_routine_join : : method join(List:D: $separator --> Str:D) : : $ p6 'say (1, ).join("|");' : 1|a b c : : : It states in the manual that

Re: need doc help with []

On 10/2/18 6:29 PM, Trey Harris wrote: It's nice, certainly, but I think you miss my point. Oh no, I completely caught it. I am noticing that with regex's. They just have started to peal off. I only posted that link in case its would assist English as a second language speakers. It was a

A regex that tickles me

Hi All, This regex just tickles me. I am converting a date (2018-09-15) I harvest from a web page into a revision number (2018.09.15). The particular web site only dates for their releases, so, no problem, I am using Perl 6 #!/usr/bin/env perl6 my Str $x = "2018-09-15"; $x ~~ s/ (<:N>**4)

Re: need doc help with []

On 10/2/2018 6:29 PM, Trey Harris wrote: So it is for the [] postcircumfix. For those of us who have been following Perl 6 development for 18 years, the fact that it—and almost every other low-level particle—can be described at all in such a way is a remarkable triumph of the language. Amen

Re: need doc help with []

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 21:10 ToddAndMargo wrote: > If you have a free moment, speaking to "have", the diagram here > is a work of art: > > https://www.freethesaurus.com/have > > I know there a lot of English as a second language speaker on this > group. The above thesaurus uses diagrams and is

Re: need doc help with []

On 10/2/18 5:14 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: 3)  What is a **@?  *@ is a slurp all remaining.   A     super duper slurp? Found this one. It is a special kind of slurpy. Grape flavor. What? Not funny? https://docs.perl6.org/syntax/%20**@ (Signature) parameter **@ Slurpy parameters

Re: need doc help with []

On 10/2/18 6:09 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:04 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: Not to put the cart before the horse, having not read those references yet, but did the crypto line forget the --> return?

Re: need doc help with []

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 9:04 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > Not to put the cart before the horse, having not read those > references yet, but did the crypto line forget the --> return? > https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature#Constraining_return_types

Re: need doc help with []

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:14 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: Hi All, I use postcircumfix [] all the time. But I don't understand the documentation. https://docs.perl6.org/routine/[%20]#language_documentation_Operators

Re: need doc help with []

What Curt said, but also, this is a bit like trying to understand English's word "have" with a dictionary. No one who speaks English natively looks up "have" in the dictionary. Anyone who does so will find definitions like, "Used in forming the perfect aspect and the past perfect aspect." Well,

Re: need doc help with []

On 10/2/18 5:20 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: Remember within the few days people sent you links to read more about signatures?  Go read them, then re-ask any remaining questions. Hi Curt, Will do. I have them both up in tabs. I am awaiting a customer to do a go to assist, so I was answering my

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/2018 5:45 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote:     Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short     for "postcircumfix"? Nope.  Each are different types of oeprator. 

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:51 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:46 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com> >

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:51 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:28:01PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 10/2/18 11:23 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote: : >So, to recap: a postfix `[]` acts on whatever is on its left, : >pulling out elements from the thing on its left, treated as : >a list like thing,

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:46 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo > > wrote: > > > > Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short > > for "postcircumfix"? > > > > > > Nope.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:28:01PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 10/2/18 11:23 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote: : >So, to recap: a postfix `[]` acts on whatever is on its left, : >pulling out elements from the thing on its left, treated as : >a list like thing, with the elements selected according to :

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 2:24 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: Also, a hopefully less steep introduction: https://opensource.com/article/18/9/signatures-perl-6 Will do! Thank you! Do you have an index to other stuff you have written?

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 2:01 AM, Simon Proctor wrote: https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature Todd can I ask that you read this page of the docs for two reasons. Firstly understanding Signatures will go a long way to helping you to understand the rest of the docs, and secondly so you can give use your take

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short for "postcircumfix"? Nope.  Each are different types of oeprator.  Here is the list:

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short > for "postcircumfix"? > Nope. Each are different types of oeprator. Here is the list: https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#Operator_classification

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 11:23 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote: So, to recap: a postfix `[]` acts on whatever is on its left, pulling out elements from the thing on its left, treated as a list like thing, with the elements selected according to the index(es) inside the brackets. Perfect! Thank you! I am going to

Re: need doc help with []

Remember within the few days people sent you links to read more about signatures? Go read them, then re-ask any remaining questions. I can cut/paste bits from them them under each of your questions, but it would really be better for you to just read the existing docs and try to understand

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 04:40, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > I am thinking of doing an RFE to place at the front > of the routines documentation that introduces the reader > on how to read THAT line in the documentation -- what > the abbreviations and symbols and the like mean. Referring the reader to

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 6:06 AM, Rocco Caputo wrote: On Oct 2, 2018, at 04:40, ToddAndMargo > wrote: I am thinking of doing an RFE to place at the front of the routines documentation that introduces the reader on how to read THAT line in the documentation -- what the

need doc help with []

Hi All, I use postcircumfix [] all the time. But I don't understand the documentation. https://docs.perl6.org/routine/[%20]#language_documentation_Operators would someone please explain what the crypto line means: sub postcircumfix:<[ ]>(@container, **@index, :$k,

Re: What are the official names?

On 10/2/18 4:47 PM, David Green wrote: On 2018-10-02 4:06 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: What is the official Perl syntaxland name of the [] subroutine? If you search for "[]" at https://docs.perl6.org, it will turn up the routine "postcircumfix [ ]", which links to

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 9:11 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: But I thought you just implied you wanted pro stuff, not beginner stuff. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said. I want the beginners stuff included with the pro stuff. So what is wanted is 'common user' stuff (see below). You are

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/1/18 4:17 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: That just sounds like the backing store got restored from backup, losing anything added after the backup was taken. Which is not the best way to do things (incrementals are nice), but if things had gone wrong enough might have been the best they could

What are the official names?

Hi All, What is the official Perl syntaxland name of the following line? multi method words(Str:D $input: $limit = Inf --> Positional) What is the official Perl syntaxland name of the [] subroutine? $ p6 'my @x=[1,2,3,4]; @x[3,2,1,0].say;' (4 3 2 1) $ p6 'my @x=[1,2,3,4];

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

>> On 10/1/18 3:37 PM, Donald Hunter wrote: >> > Methods don't accept [], values that are positional do that. >> Is your distinction that [] is actually a routine in itself >> and not part of the method? And I am lumping them together? On 10/2/18 12:18 AM,

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Also, a hopefully less steep introduction: https://opensource.com/article/18/9/signatures-perl-6 > On 2 Oct 2018, at 11:01, Simon Proctor wrote: > > https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature > > Todd can I ask that you read this page of the docs for two reasons. Firstly > understanding

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature Todd can I ask that you read this page of the docs for two reasons. Firstly understanding Signatures will go a long way to helping you to understand the rest of the docs, and secondly so you can give use your take on it pointing out any areas you think could

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Le dim. 30 sept. 2018 à 11:32, ToddAndMargo > a écrit : On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born > knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc raises the same

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/1/18 1:20 AM, Siavash wrote: You can read the thread here: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.users/2018/09/msg5757.html On 2018-10-01 04:21:43 +0330, ToddAndMargo wrote: Hi All, My "Perl" box got corrupted and in the process of rebuilding it I lost this thread except for one

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 08:05, ToddAndMargo > a écrit : On 10/1/18 3:37 PM, Donald Hunter wrote: > toddandma...@zoho.com (ToddAndMargo) writes: >> >> Hi Curt, >> >> Perfect! Thank you! >> >> So

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Yes, [] acts on the result (a positional, e.g. a list) returned by function or method, it does not act on the function or method itself. You have more or less the same in Perl 5, for example: my $first_item = (split /;/, $string)[0]; Here, the [0] acts on the list returned by split. Le mar. 2

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/1/18 3:37 PM, Donald Hunter wrote: toddandma...@zoho.com (ToddAndMargo) writes: Hi Curt, Perfect! Thank you! So all methods that respond with --> Positional will accept [] Awesome! -T Not quite. All methods that respond with --> Positional, provide a Positional that will accept []