Re: routine declaration line question

[ToddAndMargo]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com>> wrote:

  >> On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
  >>> Hi All,
  >>>
  >>> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
  >>>
  >>> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
  >>> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
  >>> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has
 "--> Mu"
  >>> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
  >>> absolutely whatever it wants.
  >>>
  >>> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
  >>> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
  >>> returns.
  >>>
  >>> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
  >>> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
  >>> being returned?
  >>>
  >>> Yours in confusion,
  >>> -T

 On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:
  > I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:
  >
  > the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
  > that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
  > time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
  > "compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before
 causing
  > too much confusion.
  >

 Hi Timo,

 Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!

 My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).

 My confusion is "what" it returns.  And not all subs
 return things, like "say" and "print".

 I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
 from the examples?

 -T


On 10/3/18 7:53 PM, yary wrote:

  > And not all subs return things, like "say" and "print".

say and print return true if the print succeeded, just like in perl 5.


say say "hi";


hi

True


Useful if printing to a filehandle, and the file you're writing to is on
a volume that fills up. Or a network drive that goes away. You do check
for those, right?


-y


Hi Yary,

Ya,  my misunderstanding.  Trey just taught me that.  Home
brew ones too.

$ p6 'sub x($Str) {say $Str};say x("y");'
y
True


I think where I got mixed up was not realizing that the
things subs return can be ignored.  And it is not like I
don't do that all the time either.  I think I just
spaced as in Modula2, you get the finger shaken at you.

Now All I have to figure out is how tot tell "what" is being
returned.  Am I suppose to pick that up from context?

-T



On 10/3/18 10:02 PM, Brad Gilbert wrote:
> If a routine does not declare it's return type, absolutely anything
> can be returned.
>
> One reason may be that its return value isn't really useful.
>
> It could be that the writer didn't think to declare it. (or didn't 
want to)

>
> Another possibility is that the potential returned values are of many
> different types.
>
> ---
>
> Note that any returned value that gets ignored will get sunk.
> (That means the `.sink()` method will get called)
>
>  class Baz {
>  method sink () { say 'the result of foo() was sunk' }
>  }
>  sub foo () {
>  Baz.new
>  }
>
>  foo(); # the result of foo() was sunk
>
> So I suppose it is similar to Modula2, except it is up to the writer
> of the class if they shake their finger at you.
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM ToddAndMargo 

Thank you.  The default return is Mu.  That I get.

How do I figure out what data is being returned? Trial and error?

Re: Feedback requested on playlist of 200 Perl 6 videos

[David Green]

On 2018-10-03 5:03 pm, Ralph Mellor wrote:

I've been building a collection of P6 videos for about 5 years.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRuESFRW2Fa77XObvk7-BYVFwobZHdXdK_polymer=true
Terrific -- I was going to say this should be listed on 
https://perl6.org/resources/ but it is indeed there! (Dunno why I didn't 
see it before, my brain was probably expecting "presentations" or 
"videos" and scanned right past the *Screencasts* section.)



-David

Re: routine declaration line question

[Brad Gilbert]

If a routine does not declare it's return type, absolutely anything
can be returned.

One reason may be that its return value isn't really useful.

It could be that the writer didn't think to declare it. (or didn't want to)

Another possibility is that the potential returned values are of many
different types.

---

Note that any returned value that gets ignored will get sunk.
(That means the `.sink()` method will get called)

class Baz {
method sink () { say 'the result of foo() was sunk' }
}
sub foo () {
Baz.new
}

foo(); # the result of foo() was sunk

So I suppose it is similar to Modula2, except it is up to the writer
of the class if they shake their finger at you.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM ToddAndMargo  wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM ToddAndMargo  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>  >> On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
> >>  >>> Hi All,
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there 
> >> isn't
> >>  >>> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
> >>  >>> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has
> >> "--> Mu"
> >>  >>> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
> >>  >>> absolutely whatever it wants.
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
> >>  >>> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
> >>  >>> returns.
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
> >>  >>> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
> >>  >>> being returned?
> >>  >>>
> >>  >>> Yours in confusion,
> >>  >>> -T
> >>
> >> On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:
> >>  > I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:
> >>  >
> >>  > the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
> >>  > that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
> >>  > time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
> >>  > "compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before
> >> causing
> >>  > too much confusion.
> >>  >
> >>
> >> Hi Timo,
> >>
> >> Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!
> >>
> >> My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).
> >>
> >> My confusion is "what" it returns.  And not all subs
> >> return things, like "say" and "print".
> >>
> >> I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
> >> from the examples?
> >>
> >> -T
>
> On 10/3/18 7:53 PM, yary wrote:
> >  > And not all subs return things, like "say" and "print".
> >
> > say and print return true if the print succeeded, just like in perl 5.
> >
> >> say say "hi";
> >
> > hi
> >
> > True
> >
> >
> > Useful if printing to a filehandle, and the file you're writing to is on
> > a volume that fills up. Or a network drive that goes away. You do check
> > for those, right?
> >
> >
> > -y
>
> Hi Yary,
>
> Ya,  my misunderstanding.  Trey just taught me that.  Home
> brew ones too.
>
> $ p6 'sub x($Str) {say $Str};say x("y");'
> y
> True
>
>
> I think where I got mixed up was not realizing that the
> things subs return can be ignored.  And it is not like I
> don't do that all the time either.  I think I just
> spaced as in Modula2, you get the finger shaken at you.
>
> Now All I have to figure out is how tot tell "what" is being
> returned.  Am I suppose to pick that up from context?
>
> -T

Re: routine declaration line question

[ToddAndMargo]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote:


 >> On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
 >>> Hi All,
 >>>
 >>> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
 >>>
 >>> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
 >>> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
 >>> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has
"--> Mu"
 >>> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
 >>> absolutely whatever it wants.
 >>>
 >>> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
 >>> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
 >>> returns.
 >>>
 >>> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
 >>> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
 >>> being returned?
 >>>
 >>> Yours in confusion,
 >>> -T

On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:
 > I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:
 >
 > the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
 > that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
 > time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
 > "compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before
causing
 > too much confusion.
 >

Hi Timo,

Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!

My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).

My confusion is "what" it returns.  And not all subs
return things, like "say" and "print".

I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
from the examples?

-T


On 10/3/18 7:53 PM, yary wrote:

 > And not all subs return things, like "say" and "print".

say and print return true if the print succeeded, just like in perl 5.


say say "hi";


hi

True


Useful if printing to a filehandle, and the file you're writing to is on 
a volume that fills up. Or a network drive that goes away. You do check 
for those, right?



-y


Hi Yary,

Ya,  my misunderstanding.  Trey just taught me that.  Home
brew ones too.

$ p6 'sub x($Str) {say $Str};say x("y");'
y
True


I think where I got mixed up was not realizing that the
things subs return can be ignored.  And it is not like I
don't do that all the time either.  I think I just
spaced as in Modula2, you get the finger shaken at you.

Now All I have to figure out is how tot tell "what" is being
returned.  Am I suppose to pick that up from context?

-T

Re: routine declaration line question

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/3/18 7:53 PM, Trey Harris wrote:


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 22:21 ToddAndMargo > wrote:


 >> On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
 >>> Hi All,
 >>>
 >>> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
 >>>
 >>>         The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
 >>>         one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
 >>>         conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has
"--> Mu"
 >>>         explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
 >>>         absolutely whatever it wants.
 >>>
 >>>         After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
 >>>         validated at compile time every time a sub or method
 >>>         returns.
 >>>
 >>> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
 >>> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
 >>> being returned?
 >>>
 >>> Yours in confusion,
 >>> -T

On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:
 > I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:
 >
 > the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
 > that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
 > time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
 > "compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before
causing
 > too much confusion.
 >

Hi Timo,

Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!

My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).

My confusion is "what" it returns. 



I'm not clear on what you mean. When "--> XXX" is given, then an XXX is 
returned. When no "-->" is given, it technically returns Mu but you can 
pretend it is like a Pascal/Module "procedure" that does not return 
anything.


And not all subs
return things, like "say" and "print".


That's not the case. "say" and "print" return something that conforms to 
-->Bool:D (in most cases, True).




I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
from the examples?


What context or examples are you referring to? Both docs rather clearly 
state that True is typically returned, and in the case of
https://docs.perl6.org/routine/say the very second code example states 
this in English and then shows it with an example.


My misunderstanding!  Even the home spun ones "--> Bool".
Thank you!


$ p6 'sub x($Str) {say $Str};say x("y");'
y
True


Now all I have to figure out is what exactly is being
returned in Mu

Re: bitwise paper?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/3/18 7:46 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
Assuming you are suggesting your examples are showing differences 
between the languages, in all your examples of differences between Perl 
6 and Perl 5 below, you are using the wrong operator or you changed one 
of the arguments between the Perl 5 and Perl 6 examples.


I won't go through them each, but for example '> 3' is the greater-than 
operator in Perl 5; 0b0001_0100 (20) is greater than 3, so the answer is 
1 (true). And in your bitwise shift left, you're shifting by 2 in Perl 6 
but by 3 in Perl 5. And so on.




Hi Trey,

Ah poop!  I made another booboo.  Mumble, mumble.

corrected:
$ p5 'my $v = 0b0100 << 3; say $v;'
32

This is my own reference.  I do still maintain a few p5 programs
so I was writing a one size fits all.

Thank you for the catch!

-T


My Keepers is basically a directory by subject:

perl6.String.to.Integer.txt
perl6.string.words.example.txt
perl6.string.zeros.remove.leading.txt
perl6.subroutines.passing.arrays.and.hashes.html
perl6.subroutines.txt
perl6.subs.calling.ones.self.txt
perl6.subs.name.of.sub.txt
perl6.succ.successor.txt
perl6.syntax.check.txt
perl6.syntax.txt

145 of them now.  They are my first line of reference when programming.

For instance: perl6.String.to.Integer.txt  (notice how I start
simple and them more up):



Perl 6: convert String to Integer and Integer to String:


String to Integer:
   $ p6 'my Str $x = "122333"; my Int $y = $x.Int; say $y;'
   122333

   $ p6 'my Int $x; my Str $y = "5"; $x = "$y" + 0; say "$x";'
   5


Integer to String:
   $ p6 'my Int $x = 122333; my Str $y = $x.Str; say $y;'
   122333

   $ p6 'my Str $x; my Int $y = 9; $x = "$y"; say "$x";'
   9

   $ p6 'my Str $x = "1\n22\n333\n"; my Int @y; @y = ( split "\n", $x, 
:skip-empty )>>.Int; for @y -> Int $i {say $i;}'

   1
   22
   333

   $ p6 'my Str $x = "1\n22\n333\n"; my Int @y; for ( split "\n", $x, 
:skip-empty )>>.Int -> $i {say $i;}'

   1
   22
   333


"dd":
   $ p6 'my Str $x = "5"; my Int $y = dd +$x; say $y'
   5
   (Int)

   $ p6 'my Int $y = 7; my Str $x = dd ~$y; say $x'
   "7"
   (Str)

Re: routine declaration line question

[yary]

> And not all subs return things, like "say" and "print".

say and print return true if the print succeeded, just like in perl 5.

> say say "hi";

hi

True


Useful if printing to a filehandle, and the file you're writing to is on a
volume that fills up. Or a network drive that goes away. You do check for
those, right?


-y





On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:21 PM ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> >> On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
> >>>
> >>> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
> >>> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
> >>> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
> >>> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
> >>> absolutely whatever it wants.
> >>>
> >>> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
> >>> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
> >>> returns.
> >>>
> >>> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
> >>> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
> >>> being returned?
> >>>
> >>> Yours in confusion,
> >>> -T
>
> On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:
> > I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:
> >
> > the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
> > that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
> > time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
> > "compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before causing
> > too much confusion.
> >
>
> Hi Timo,
>
> Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!
>
> My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).
>
> My confusion is "what" it returns.  And not all subs
> return things, like "say" and "print".
>
> I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
> from the examples?
>
> -T
>
>
> --
> ~~
> Computers are like air conditioners.
> They malfunction when you open windows
> ~~
>

Re: routine declaration line question

[Trey Harris]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 22:21 ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> >> On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
> >>>
> >>> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
> >>> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
> >>> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
> >>> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
> >>> absolutely whatever it wants.
> >>>
> >>> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
> >>> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
> >>> returns.
> >>>
> >>> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
> >>> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
> >>> being returned?
> >>>
> >>> Yours in confusion,
> >>> -T
>
> On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:
> > I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:
> >
> > the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
> > that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
> > time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
> > "compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before causing
> > too much confusion.
> >
>
> Hi Timo,
>
> Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!
>
> My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).
>
> My confusion is "what" it returns.


I'm not clear on what you mean. When "--> XXX" is given, then an XXX is
returned. When no "-->" is given, it technically returns Mu but you can
pretend it is like a Pascal/Module "procedure" that does not return
anything.

And not all subs
> return things, like "say" and "print".


That's not the case. "say" and "print" return something that conforms to -->
 Bool:D (in most cases, True).


>
> I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
> from the examples?


What context or examples are you referring to? Both docs rather clearly
state that True is typically returned, and in the case of
https://docs.perl6.org/routine/say the very second code example states this
in English and then shows it with an example.


>
> -T
>
>
> --
> ~~
> Computers are like air conditioners.
> They malfunction when you open windows
> ~~
>

Re: bitwise paper?

[Trey Harris]

Todd,

Assuming you are suggesting your examples are showing differences between
the languages, in all your examples of differences between Perl 6 and Perl
5 below, you are using the wrong operator or you changed one of the
arguments between the Perl 5 and Perl 6 examples.

I won't go through them each, but for example '> 3' is the greater-than
operator in Perl 5; 0b0001_0100 (20) is greater than 3, so the answer is 1
(true). And in your bitwise shift left, you're shifting by 2 in Perl 6 but
by 3 in Perl 5. And so on.

If you weren't trying to show differences between the languages but had
some other reason for changing multiple controls at once, never mind me; I
don't know how your "keeper file" works.

(But I should point out that since you at least at some point suggested
it's the sort of stuff you'd like to see in the docs, we don't give Perl 5
comparisons in the part of the docs that don't relate to Perl 5 (just in
the Perl 5 to Perl 6 Guide docs and _very_ rarely in a couple of other
cases that represent bad traps for those who might assume something works
like it does in Perl 5), and when we do give side-by-side examples of two
things, authors have tried to give example that change the minimum required
to show the difference and no more.)


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 22:16 ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> My keeper file so far:
>
> Perl: bitwise operators:
>
> alias p5='perl6 -E'
> alias p6='perl6 -e'
>
>
> Bitwise AND:
>  $ p6 'my $v = 32 +& 16; say $v;'
>  0
>
>  $ p5 'my $v = 32 & 16; say $v;'
>  0
>
>
> Bitwise OR:
>  $ p5 'my $v = 32 | 16; say $v;'
>  48
>
>  $ p6 'my $v = 32 +| 16; say $v;'
>  48
>
>
> Bitwise shift left:
>  $ p6 'my $v = 0b0100 +< 2; say $v;'
>  16
>
>  $ p5 'my $v = 0b0100 << 3; say $v;'
>  32
>
>
>
> Bitwise shift right:
>  $ p5 'my $v = 0b00010100 > 3; say $v;'
>  1
>
>  $ p6 'my $v = 0b00110100 +> 3; say $v;'
>  6
>
>
> Bitwise XOR:
>  $ p5 'my $v = 0b00101101 ^ 0b1001; say $v;'
>  36
>
>  $ p6 'my $v = 0b1101 +^ 0b1001; say $v;'
>  4
>
>
> Bitwise Compliment (flip the bits):
>  $ p5 'my $x = 0b00101101; my $y= (~$x); my $z= (~$y); say
> "$x\n$y\n$z"; '
>  45
>  18446744073709551570
>  45
>
>  $ p6 'my $x = 0b00101101; my $y= (+^$x); my $z= (+^$y); say
> "$x\n$y\n$z"; '
>  45
>  -46
>  45
>
>
> Bitwise "IN" (Does y exist in x):
>
>  $ p6 'my $x=0b1001; my $y=0b0101; my $z=$x +& $y; say so $y == $z;'
>  False
>
>  $ p6 'my $x=0b1001; my $y=0b1001; my $z=$x +& $y; say so $y == $z;'
>  True
>
>  p5 not figured out yet
>

Re: routine declaration line question

[ToddAndMargo]

On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:

Hi All,

In another thread, Timo wrote me:

The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
absolutely whatever it wants.

After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
validated at compile time every time a sub or method
returns.

I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
being returned?

Yours in confusion,
-T


On 10/3/18 6:44 PM, Timo Paulssen wrote:

I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:

the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
"compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before causing
too much confusion.



Hi Timo,

Thank you for the help over on the chat line with IN!

My confusion is not that it returns something (Mu).

My confusion is "what" it returns.  And not all subs
return things, like "say" and "print".

I am presuming I am to pick the "what" from context
from the examples?

-T


--
~~
Computers are like air conditioners.
They malfunction when you open windows
~~

Re: bitwise paper?

[ToddAndMargo]

My keeper file so far:

Perl: bitwise operators:

alias p5='perl6 -E'
alias p6='perl6 -e'


Bitwise AND:
$ p6 'my $v = 32 +& 16; say $v;'
0

$ p5 'my $v = 32 & 16; say $v;'
0


Bitwise OR:
$ p5 'my $v = 32 | 16; say $v;'
48

$ p6 'my $v = 32 +| 16; say $v;'
48


Bitwise shift left:
$ p6 'my $v = 0b0100 +< 2; say $v;'
16

$ p5 'my $v = 0b0100 << 3; say $v;'
32



Bitwise shift right:
$ p5 'my $v = 0b00010100 > 3; say $v;'
1

$ p6 'my $v = 0b00110100 +> 3; say $v;'
6


Bitwise XOR:
$ p5 'my $v = 0b00101101 ^ 0b1001; say $v;'
36

$ p6 'my $v = 0b1101 +^ 0b1001; say $v;'
4


Bitwise Compliment (flip the bits):
$ p5 'my $x = 0b00101101; my $y= (~$x); my $z= (~$y); say 
"$x\n$y\n$z"; '

45
18446744073709551570
45

$ p6 'my $x = 0b00101101; my $y= (+^$x); my $z= (+^$y); say 
"$x\n$y\n$z"; '

45
-46
45


Bitwise "IN" (Does y exist in x):

$ p6 'my $x=0b1001; my $y=0b0101; my $z=$x +& $y; say so $y == $z;'
False

$ p6 'my $x=0b1001; my $y=0b1001; my $z=$x +& $y; say so $y == $z;'
True

p5 not figured out yet

Re: routine declaration line question

[Timo Paulssen]

I just spotted a grave mistake in my earlier mail:

the --> constraints are validated at *run* time, not *compile* time;
that's a very big difference, and an important one. Of course "every
time a sub or method returns" doesn't make much sense if i had meant
"compile time", but I felt i should really point it out before causing
too much confusion.

On 04/10/2018 03:07, ToddAndMargo wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
>
>    The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
>    one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
>    conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
>    explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
>    absolutely whatever it wants.
>
>    After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
>    validated at compile time every time a sub or method
>    returns.
>
> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
> being returned?
>
> Yours in confusion,
> -T

Re: routine declaration line question

[Trey Harris]

_All_ routines in Perl 6 return _something._ A lack of a "-->" simply
indicates stylistically that the return is not useful because it's whatever
"falls off the end". (There's a bit of variance here as I'm not sure it's a
convention everyone has followed.) It's equivalent to "--> Mu" because
anything that could "fall of the end" is Mu.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 21:07 ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
>
> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
> absolutely whatever it wants.
>
> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
> returns.
>
> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
> being returned?
>
> Yours in confusion,
> -T
>

Re: routine declaration line question

[Brandon Allbery]

Perl 6 routines always return *something*; if you don't return anything
explicitly, it will return the result of the last statement/expression, or
Mu as a last resort. (Mu is the "least defined value" in Perl 6. Any is
somewhat more common, but is slightly more defined since it can participate
in junction autothreading.) It's analogous to Perl 5 returning undef if you
don't give it something else to return.

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:07 PM ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> In another thread, Timo wrote me:
>
> The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
> one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
> conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
> explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
> absolutely whatever it wants.
>
> After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
> validated at compile time every time a sub or method
> returns.
>
> I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
> the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
> being returned?
>
> Yours in confusion,
> -T
>


-- 
brandon s allbery kf8nh
allber...@gmail.com

routine declaration line question

[ToddAndMargo]

Hi All,

In another thread, Timo wrote me:

   The "-->" part of the signature is optional. If there isn't
   one, it defaults to Mu, which is the type that everything
   conforms to, i.e. the sub or method that either has "--> Mu"
   explicitly, or has it by leaving it out, may return
   absolutely whatever it wants.

   After all, the "-->" part is a constraint, and it gets
   validated at compile time every time a sub or method
   returns.

I got to thinking, some routines do not return anything.  Without
the "-->" constraint, how am I to determine if something is
being returned?

Yours in confusion,
-T

Re: bitwise paper?

[ToddAndMargo]

> I'm looking at
> 
https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator 


> right now and it has entries for every bitwise operator. I suggest you
> hold down the SHIFT key and press reload to clear your browser cache.
>
>
>
> But, now that I know what to look for, I will find the rest, so
> no one offer additional help, unless they just want to.
>
> My goal is to write up a Keeper file for this.  I will post it
> back on this thread when I finish.
>
> -T
>

On 10/3/18 6:00 PM, Trey Harris wrote:


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 20:56 ToddAndMargo > wrote:


On 10/3/18 1:50 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
 >
 > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 13:38 ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com>
 > >> wrote:
 >
 >      > Go to docs.perl6.org 

 >     . Type "bitwise" into the
 >      > search box. You will see a popup, "Numeric bitwise AND
operator".
 >     Click
 >      > it to be taken to
 >      >
 >

https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator,
 >
 >      > which will tell you the bitwise AND operator in Perl 6 is +&.
 >      >
 >      > Run the same command with +& and you will get the answer 0.
 >      >
 >      > If, on the other hand, you go to docs.perl6.org

 >      ,
 >      > and type "&" into the search box, you will see under "Infix"
 >     (since you
 >      > used the operator between two things, it is Infix, as the docs
 >     say if
 >      > you type "infix" into the search box and click the first
entry under
 >      > "Reference"; I have no idea how you'd divine that such a
thing is
 >     called
 >      > an infix operator aside from common programming parlance,
but if you
 >      > have an idea how that might be expressed it can easily be
added
 >     to the
 >      > index) that the first entry is "&".
 >      >
 >      > Click on this "&" and you are taken to
 > https://docs.perl6.org/routine/;
 >      > which rather clearly says it returns an all Junction.
 >      >
 >      > So I wonder why were you under the impression that the
above "should
 >      > give [you]  "?
 >      >
 >      > Trey
 >
 >
 >     Thank you.
 >
 >     Looks like I am going to have to look them up one at a time.
 >
 >
 > Just because you get to a specific place on a page by typing
something
 > into the search box doesn't mean you can't scroll up and down on the
 > page anyway. You can do the same from +& and see the other
operators, too.
 >

Hi Trey,

That page only give me one page and nothing to scroll up or down on.






Oh, you know what, I had clicked on

https://docs.perl6.org/routine/;

Thank you!


--
~
I am Windows
I am the Blue Screen of Death
No one hears your screams
~

Re: bitwise paper?

[Trey Harris]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 20:56 ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> On 10/3/18 1:50 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 13:38 ToddAndMargo  > > wrote:
> >
> >  > Go to docs.perl6.org 
> > . Type "bitwise" into the
> >  > search box. You will see a popup, "Numeric bitwise AND operator".
> > Click
> >  > it to be taken to
> >  >
> >
> https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator
> ,
> >
> >  > which will tell you the bitwise AND operator in Perl 6 is +&.
> >  >
> >  > Run the same command with +& and you will get the answer 0.
> >  >
> >  > If, on the other hand, you go to docs.perl6.org
> >  ,
> >  > and type "&" into the search box, you will see under "Infix"
> > (since you
> >  > used the operator between two things, it is Infix, as the docs
> > say if
> >  > you type "infix" into the search box and click the first entry
> under
> >  > "Reference"; I have no idea how you'd divine that such a thing is
> > called
> >  > an infix operator aside from common programming parlance, but if
> you
> >  > have an idea how that might be expressed it can easily be added
> > to the
> >  > index) that the first entry is "&".
> >  >
> >  > Click on this "&" and you are taken to
> > https://docs.perl6.org/routine/;
> >  > which rather clearly says it returns an all Junction.
> >  >
> >  > So I wonder why were you under the impression that the above
> "should
> >  > give [you]  "?
> >  >
> >  > Trey
> >
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Looks like I am going to have to look them up one at a time.
> >
> >
> > Just because you get to a specific place on a page by typing something
> > into the search box doesn't mean you can't scroll up and down on the
> > page anyway. You can do the same from +& and see the other operators,
> too.
> >
>
> Hi Trey,
>
> That page only give me one page and nothing to scroll up or down on.



I'm looking at
https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator
right now and it has entries for every bitwise operator. I suggest you hold
down the SHIFT key and press reload to clear your browser cache.


>
> But, now that I know what to look for, I will find the rest, so
> no one offer additional help, unless they just want to.
>
> My goal is to write up a Keeper file for this.  I will post it
> back on this thread when I finish.
>
> -T
>

Re: What are the official names?

[ToddAndMargo]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:31 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote:


On 10/3/18 3:34 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote:
 > That's called a routine declaration.


That's the one.  Thank you!



On 10/3/18 3:39 PM, Ralph Mellor wrote:

Thanks for the feedback.

Note that this is also a routine declaration:

sub postcircumfix:<[ ]> ($lhs, $inside) { ... }

The term "name" is ambiguous. I guessed you might mean it
generically, so that's why I started with "routine declaration".

But "name" has a more specific meaning in Perl 6 so that's why
I stepped thru to that more specific meaning.

Not that these "names" actually come in short, long and
qualified versions.

`words` is a short name.

`postcircumfix:<[ ]>` is a short name.

There are two ways to make a short name longer.

One is a longname which appends a signature:

`postcircumfix:<[ ]>($, | is raw)` is a longname.

(See also https://docs.perl6.org/syntax/Long%20names)

The other way is to prepend a package qualifier:

`::postcircumfix:<[ ]>` is a package qualified name.

--
raiph


Hi Ralph,

Thank you!

I am slowly learning the names and context of these things.

-T

Who is "raiph"?

Re: bitwise paper?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/3/18 1:50 PM, Trey Harris wrote:


On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 13:38 ToddAndMargo > wrote:


 > Go to docs.perl6.org 
. Type "bitwise" into the
 > search box. You will see a popup, "Numeric bitwise AND operator".
Click
 > it to be taken to
 >

https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator,

 > which will tell you the bitwise AND operator in Perl 6 is +&.
 >
 > Run the same command with +& and you will get the answer 0.
 >
 > If, on the other hand, you go to docs.perl6.org
 ,
 > and type "&" into the search box, you will see under "Infix"
(since you
 > used the operator between two things, it is Infix, as the docs
say if
 > you type "infix" into the search box and click the first entry under
 > "Reference"; I have no idea how you'd divine that such a thing is
called
 > an infix operator aside from common programming parlance, but if you
 > have an idea how that might be expressed it can easily be added
to the
 > index) that the first entry is "&".
 >
 > Click on this "&" and you are taken to
https://docs.perl6.org/routine/;
 > which rather clearly says it returns an all Junction.
 >
 > So I wonder why were you under the impression that the above "should
 > give [you]  "?
 >
 > Trey


Thank you.

Looks like I am going to have to look them up one at a time.


Just because you get to a specific place on a page by typing something 
into the search box doesn't mean you can't scroll up and down on the 
page anyway. You can do the same from +& and see the other operators, too.




Hi Trey,

That page only give me one page and nothing to scroll up or down on.

But, now that I know what to look for, I will find the rest, so
no one offer additional help, unless they just want to.

My goal is to write up a Keeper file for this.  I will post it
back on this thread when I finish.

-T

Feedback requested on playlist of 200 Perl 6 videos

[Ralph Mellor]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:16 AM David Green 
wrote:

> There are  quite a few recorded P6 presentations around, but I
> don't know if  there's a collected list anywhere, or one that links
> to recent talks (anything not too out-of-date).
>

I've been building a collection of P6 videos for about 5 years.

I'm pretty sure I've caught most of the reasonably obvious ones.

I've reviewed them all and added a couple hundred to a playlist.

I include a tweet sized summary for each.

The most recent 100 are post 6.c. Older ones go back a decade.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRuESFRW2Fa77XObvk7-BYVFwobZHdXdK_polymer=true

A few months ago google changed something so they start at
random times. that's badly screwed things up. I've researched
and it looks like I'll have to rebuild the playlist. So now would
be a great time for anyone to give me feedback on what they
think of this list of videos, or the summary I've written for any
video you watch some of, or any other comment you care to
make.

TIA.

--
raiph

Re: What are the official names?

[Ralph Mellor]

Thanks for the feedback.

Note that this is also a routine declaration:

sub postcircumfix:<[ ]> ($lhs, $inside) { ... }

The term "name" is ambiguous. I guessed you might mean it
generically, so that's why I started with "routine declaration".

But "name" has a more specific meaning in Perl 6 so that's why
I stepped thru to that more specific meaning.

Not that these "names" actually come in short, long and
qualified versions.

`words` is a short name.

`postcircumfix:<[ ]>` is a short name.

There are two ways to make a short name longer.

One is a longname which appends a signature:

`postcircumfix:<[ ]>($, | is raw)` is a longname.

(See also https://docs.perl6.org/syntax/Long%20names)

The other way is to prepend a package qualifier:

`::postcircumfix:<[ ]>` is a package qualified name.

--
raiph

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 6:31 PM ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> On 10/3/18 3:34 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote:
> > That's called a routine declaration.
>
>
> That's the one.  Thank you!
>

Re: bitwise paper?

[Trey Harris]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 13:38 ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> > Go to docs.perl6.org . Type "bitwise" into the
> > search box. You will see a popup, "Numeric bitwise AND operator". Click
> > it to be taken to
> >
> https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator,
>
> > which will tell you the bitwise AND operator in Perl 6 is +&.
> >
> > Run the same command with +& and you will get the answer 0.
> >
> > If, on the other hand, you go to docs.perl6.org ,
>
> > and type "&" into the search box, you will see under "Infix" (since you
> > used the operator between two things, it is Infix, as the docs say if
> > you type "infix" into the search box and click the first entry under
> > "Reference"; I have no idea how you'd divine that such a thing is called
> > an infix operator aside from common programming parlance, but if you
> > have an idea how that might be expressed it can easily be added to the
> > index) that the first entry is "&".
> >
> > Click on this "&" and you are taken to https://docs.perl6.org/routine/;
> > which rather clearly says it returns an all Junction.
> >
> > So I wonder why were you under the impression that the above "should
> > give [you]  "?
> >
> > Trey
>
>
> Thank you.
>
> Looks like I am going to have to look them up one at a time.


Just because you get to a specific place on a page by typing something into
the search box doesn't mean you can't scroll up and down on the page
anyway. You can do the same from +& and see the other operators, too.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/3/18 11:33 AM, ToddAndMargo wrote:

On 10/2/18 10:16 PM, David Green wrote:

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.  There are 
quite a few recorded P6 presentations around, but I don't know if 
there's a collected list anywhere, or one that links to recent talks 
(anything not too out-of-date).



 >[RH] are mixing socialist political terms with what I am stating.  
[...]

 >I have been very clear what I am after, so I won't repeat it yet again.

The word "common" comes from Latin, and "typical" from Greek, but in 
this context they are synonyms. There's nothing political about it.  
But it does show how easy it is for something that is clear to one 
person to be misunderstood by another. Repeating something the same 
way doesn't make it clearer (that's one of the reasons we have 
teachers instead of only books, because they can reword things and 
take different approaches).


There isn't any easy answer to coming up with documentation that works 
for everyone.  (You can't please all of the people all of the time.) 
Perl(5)doc is just a book, after all; but "be more like Perl 5" won't 
work, because Perl 6 is *different* from Perl 5.  Putting beginner and 
advanced docs together might end up with a mish-mash that makes nobody 
happy.  It seems likely to me that you're looking for example-based 
documentation that is organised very differently from docs.perl6.  
What about Moritz's *Perl 6 Fundamentals*, "A Primer with Examples, 
Projects, and Case Studies"?


https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484228982

Is this something that better fits the way you think?


-David


Hi David,

I will look it up.

Any usa sources of the book?

-T


https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/2/18 10:16 PM, David Green wrote:

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.  There are 
quite a few recorded P6 presentations around, but I don't know if 
there's a collected list anywhere, or one that links to recent talks 
(anything not too out-of-date).



 >[RH] are mixing socialist political terms with what I am stating.  [...]
 >I have been very clear what I am after, so I won't repeat it yet again.

The word "common" comes from Latin, and "typical" from Greek, but in 
this context they are synonyms. There's nothing political about it.  But 
it does show how easy it is for something that is clear to one person to 
be misunderstood by another. Repeating something the same way doesn't 
make it clearer (that's one of the reasons we have teachers instead of 
only books, because they can reword things and take different approaches).


There isn't any easy answer to coming up with documentation that works 
for everyone.  (You can't please all of the people all of the time.) 
Perl(5)doc is just a book, after all; but "be more like Perl 5" won't 
work, because Perl 6 is *different* from Perl 5.  Putting beginner and 
advanced docs together might end up with a mish-mash that makes nobody 
happy.  It seems likely to me that you're looking for example-based 
documentation that is organised very differently from docs.perl6.  What 
about Moritz's *Perl 6 Fundamentals*, "A Primer with Examples, Projects, 
and Case Studies"?


https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484228982

Is this something that better fits the way you think?


-David


Hi David,

I will look it up.

Any usa sources of the book?

-T

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

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/2/18 9:02 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote:
The Perl6 community is warm, generous, and intellectually inspiring. 
Those virtues should be defended against unseemly and intemperate 
language. Calling a documentation writer a 'jerk' is wrong.


Agreed.  They are very much so.  And since you are a native
English speaker, you know there is a difference between
calling someone a jerk for lording it over the recipient
that he knows more than you do and me calling anyone
on the Perl 6 community a jerk. I was criticizing a writing
style, not the Perl 6 community.  That you thought I had
I had done that is beyond me.

Re: bitwise paper?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/2/18 9:46 PM, Trey Harris wrote:


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)

should give me  .


"Should give you"? Why do you say that?


If P6 was asked correctly to do a bitwise AND,
it would give that result.  Obviously, it is
not being asked correctly.



Go to docs.perl6.org . Type "bitwise" into the 
search box. You will see a popup, "Numeric bitwise AND operator". Click 
it to be taken to
https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator, 
which will tell you the bitwise AND operator in Perl 6 is +&.


Run the same command with +& and you will get the answer 0.

If, on the other hand, you go to docs.perl6.org , 
and type "&" into the search box, you will see under "Infix" (since you 
used the operator between two things, it is Infix, as the docs say if 
you type "infix" into the search box and click the first entry under 
"Reference"; I have no idea how you'd divine that such a thing is called 
an infix operator aside from common programming parlance, but if you 
have an idea how that might be expressed it can easily be added to the 
index) that the first entry is "&".


Click on this "&" and you are taken to https://docs.perl6.org/routine/; 
which rather clearly says it returns an all Junction.


So I wonder why were you under the impression that the above "should 
give [you]  "?


Trey



Thank you.

Looks like I am going to have to look them up one at a time.
The paper I had from Perl 5 had them all in a table.  AND, OR, NOR,
NAND, XOR, IN, shift left, shift right, etc..

-T

Re: bitwise paper?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/2/18 10:16 PM, David Green wrote:

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 "+&":

https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#infix_+;

And sure enough, 'say 32 +& 16' will return '0'.

The other bitwise operators work likewise: almost the same as Perl 5, 
but with a "+" in front (to indicate that they are numeric operators, as 
opposed to plain "&", "|", etc., which are now junctions... and yes, 
there is https://docs.perl6.org/type/Junction for those who dare!).



-David


P.S. Actually, the search returns:
https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-Numeric_bitwise_AND_operator 

...instead of the correct fragment: "#infix_+&" -- is that generated 
automatically?


Thank you.

Looks like I am going to have to look them up one at a time.
The paper I had from Perl 5 had hem in a table.  AND, OR, NOR,
NAND, XOR, IN, shift left, shift right, etc..

-T

Re: What are the official names?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/3/18 8:27 AM, Vittore Scolari wrote:

"Apocalypse 6: Subroutines" document define that as a subroutine declaration


Thank you!

Re: What are the official names?

[ToddAndMargo]

On 10/3/18 3:34 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote:

That's called a routine declaration.



That's the one.  Thank you!

Re: What are the official names?

[Vittore Scolari]

To simplify, it is my understanding that the "Apocalypse 6: Subroutines" 
document define that as a subroutine declaration, with signature. Forgetting 
the nomenclature, that might well be inspired by magical imaginary, AFAIK, it 
is practically just pattern matching, same as a regex: to teach the compiler 
which code shall get executed in function of the way the subroutine gets called.

> On 3 Oct 2018, at 12:34, Ralph Mellor  wrote:
> 
> > Any idea what the official name of the crypto line is?
> 
> You haven't mentioned "crypto line" until this point.
> 
> So I'm guessing you mean the line that starts "multi".
> 
> That's called a routine declaration.
> 
> More specifically a method declaration.
> 
> More specifically a multi method declaration.
> 
> More specifically a `words` method declaration.
> 
> More specifically a `words` multi method declaration.
> 
> More specifically `words(Str:D: Any --> Positional)`.
> 
> More specifically `words(Str:D $input: $limit = Inf --> Positional)`.
> 
> --
> raiph
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:43 AM ToddAndMargo  wrote:
>> 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: Landing page for Documentation

[JJ Merelo]

Hi,

El mié., 3 oct. 2018 a las 12:13, Tom Browder ()
escribió:

> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:14 AM Richard Hainsworth
>  wrote:
> > 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 about the Language page is its unstructured
> > listing.
> > I looked at 00-POD6-CONTROL and found that the categories were much more
> > useful than a straight enumeration of files.
> ...
>
> I agree, Richard, and I started the reorg project but got shot down
> because AlexDaniel and others didn’t like the way I separated the page
> into the categories. I use an all-caps title in the right (or left if
> desired) column.
>
> I think I missed that. I kinda liked it. You can separate them in other
different ways, I guess. As long as we have a rough consensus, I'm OK with
it.

The plan is for multi-page listing, categories on the first page, and
> category breakout on a separate category page for each, but that is a
> major effort.
>
> However, in the interim, I sure think my simple solution is better
> than what we have.
>

Right.
JJ

Re: What are the official names?

[Ralph Mellor]

> Any idea what the official name of the crypto line is?

You haven't mentioned "crypto line" until this point.

So I'm guessing you mean the line that starts "multi".

That's called a routine declaration.

More specifically a method declaration.

More specifically a multi method declaration.

More specifically a `words` method declaration.

More specifically a `words` multi method declaration.

More specifically `words(Str:D: Any --> Positional)`.

More specifically `words(Str:D $input: $limit = Inf --> Positional)`.

--
raiph

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:43 AM ToddAndMargo  wrote:

> 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: Landing page for Documentation

[Tom Browder]

On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:14 AM Richard Hainsworth
 wrote:
> 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 about the Language page is its unstructured
> listing.
> I looked at 00-POD6-CONTROL and found that the categories were much more
> useful than a straight enumeration of files.
...

I agree, Richard, and I started the reorg project but got shot down
because AlexDaniel and others didn’t like the way I separated the page
into the categories. I use an all-caps title in the right (or left if
desired) column.

The plan is for multi-page listing, categories on the first page, and
category breakout on a separate category page for each, but that is a
major effort.

However, in the interim, I sure think my simple solution is better
than what we have.

Thanks for the comment (and support)!

Best regards,

-Tom

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

[Elizabeth Mattijsen]

> On 3 Oct 2018, at 02:48, ToddAndMargo  wrote:
> 
> 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?

https://opensource.com/users/lizmat contains an index of the stuff I’ve written 
for opensource.com.