Re: Could this be any more obscure?

2018-10-01 Thread ToddAndMargo
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 []

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

2018-10-01 Thread Donald Hunter
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 [] Methods don't accept [], valu

Re: join questions

2018-10-01 Thread Larry Wall
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 this will happen. : : Questions: : :

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

2018-10-01 Thread Brandon Allbery
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 do. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 7:13 PM ToddAndMarg

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

2018-10-01 Thread ToddAndMargo
On 9/30/18 3:58 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: There is one line per signature, or definition. You misunderstand. I was proposing a different way of stating it such that you did not have to keep repeating lines with slight differences

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

2018-10-01 Thread ToddAndMargo
On 9/30/18 9:11 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: your 'perl' box was corrupted. Somewhere the imap daemons got appeased and suddenly a day later, I watched it all come blazing back. Hopefully tomorrow I will get a chance to read over what yo wrote. By the way, the eMail I send about the thread

Re: Package Compile Question

2018-10-01 Thread Brad Gilbert
`Foo::Bar::<$quux>` is basically short for `::Foo::Bar::('$quux')` (except the former is looked up at compile time) So the way to do this is: my $bar = 'Bar'; ::Foo::( $bar ~ '::$quux' ) or ::Foo::($bar)::('$quux') Note that the leading `::` are necessary for dynamic lookups. (Wher

Re: Package Compile Question

2018-10-01 Thread JJ Merelo
El lun., 1 oct. 2018 a las 13:47, Richard Hogaboom (< richard.hogab...@gmail.com>) escribió: > Hmm... the ($bar) in Foo::($bar)::<$quux>; is an interpolation, but the > <$quux> is just another way of writing $Foo::($bar)::quux;, not an > interpolation, no? > > Right. It kinda is, but it should ra

Re: Package Compile Question

2018-10-01 Thread Richard Hogaboom
Hmm...  the ($bar) in Foo::($bar)::<$quux>; is an interpolation, but the <$quux> is just another way of writing $Foo::($bar)::quux;, not an interpolation, no? On 10/1/18 7:41 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: Thanks. I'll fix that. WRT the original post, it looks like it should work, but apparently can't

Re: Package Compile Question

2018-10-01 Thread JJ Merelo
Thanks. I'll fix that. WRT the original post, it looks like it should work, but apparently can't. The error should be selfexplanatory. Either you interpolate using :: or <>, but not both... JJ El lun., 1 oct. 2018 a las 13:38, Richard Hogaboom (< richard.hogab...@gmail.com>) escribió: > Not exa

Re: Package Compile Question

2018-10-01 Thread Richard Hogaboom
Not exactly, but close.  The following line is exactly from the doc.  It works.  It it works, then the offending(next line) line should work as well. my$bar='Bar'; say$Foo::($bar)::quux; # compound identifiers with interpolations; OUTPUT: «42␤» sayFoo::($bar)::<$quux>; # won't compile - but

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

2018-10-01 Thread Siavash
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 one message from JJ. > Anyway, I