On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : my @attrs = qw{ name type breed }
: : my Pet @list=qw{
: : fido dog collie
: : fluffy cat siamese
: : } ~~ sub (@x) { map { _ => _ } @attrs x Inf ^, @x }
: : ~~ sub (@x) { map { { _ , _ , _ } } @x ;
:
: by the way , ~~ seems to work like unix "|" pipe .
:
: in the Apo4 the entry says
:
: @a ~~ sub ( @x ) { ... } ----> &b(@a)
:
: will it hande that :
:
: @a ~~ map { _ => _ }
: ~~ map { {_,_,_} }
:
: where the first *unsupplyed* argument to map
: is expected to be *list* ?
The purpose of ~~ is first and foremost to return a reasonable boolean
value in boolean context. The question is whether the one ~~ will
notice the other ~~ operator in one of its arguments and thereby
force that argument into boolean context, just as
$x ~~ ?foo($^x)
notices the ? and just calls foo() rather than trying to match the
return value of foo(), as it would if you said:
$x ~~ +foo()
$x ~~ ~foo()
I think it would be cool if there were a way to pull the arguments out
to the front, because then we really could write in Japanese word order:
@args wa $*OUT de print yo!
: also , is here the following DWIMmery in place
:
: sub pairs ( $x,$y ){ $x => $y } ;
: sub triples ( $x,$y,$z ){ {$x,$y,$z} };
: @a ~~ &pairs ~~ &triples ;
:
: ?
:
: so that ~~ will wrap "for" loop around "pairs" and "tripples" ,
: similar to "-n" perl flag ;
This doesn't make sense to me. If you're trying to pass the parsed topic list
to them, they should be returning a boolean value. If you're trying to return
a set of values to be compared against @a, Perl's not going to also pass @a
to your functions.
Larry
