On 10/2/18 6:02 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
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, that's not very good at all, how could any common
speaker be expected to understand that? Could any fluent English speaker
reverse engineer that definition? Obviously, considering common cases
like "I *have* already seen that movie", how you _should_ write that
definition is... well...
The [] postcircmfix is so low-level to how Perl (both 5 and 6) work that
squinting at its solitary definition to try to divine meaning is not
particularly useful. Eventually you will know Perl 6 well enough that
this document might be of interest to you when you're trying to
implement your own indexing or postcircumfix operator. But it's not
useful for learning what [] _does_ in practice, because it's so basic to
the language that one can only really learn it through seeing it used,
or in a tutorial where it comes up as a topic.
I am noticing that with regex's. They are starting to just peal off.
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 wonderfully
well done.
