On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Are there others, aside from these: ?
prefix: a unary prefix operator
infix: a binary infix operator
postfix:a binary suffix operator
circumfix: a bracketing operator
Tons. From A12:
[snip]
On the wild side of
Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different OO models
Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects
inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes in Perl 6.
Urgle. I've completely failed to
Michele Dondi writes:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Are there others, aside from these: ?
prefix: a unary prefix operator
infix: a binary infix operator
postfix:a binary suffix operator
circumfix: a bracketing operator
Tons. From
Hello,
I've tried the archives and the 'Perl 6 essentials' book and I can't
find anything
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using
substr or unpack. Hope I've not missed anything
Gautam Gopalakrishnan skribis 2004-07-08 21:12 (+1000):
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using
$a[0] is $a.[0]. That means that if there is a @$a, it still is array
Gautam Gopalakrishnan writes:
Hello,
I've tried the archives and the 'Perl 6 essentials' book and I can't
find anything
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using
substr or
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Piers Cawley wrote:
Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Perl 6 Summarizer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Different OO models
Jonadab the Unsightly One had wondered about having objects
inheriting behaviour from objects rather than classes
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Or was that to imply that a literal a in the RE would be
: interpretted as a grapheme a when :u2 is active?
I don't know what you mean by grapheme a there. If you mean, Does
it
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:49:33AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Michele Dondi writes:
: On the wild side of things, could there be the possibility of even
: defining new ones?
:
: That's what I meant by:
:
: grammatical_category:postcircumfix
:
: Though it wouldn't be so magical as to just
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:46:25AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: With an array
: match, you might find yourself redispatching individual operators in a
: switch statement to provide that kind of specificity.
In particular, macros with is parsed will want to have a place to
hang their special parse
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 11:50:16PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
To answer the latter first, rand (with no arguments) returns a number
greater than or equal to 0 and less than 1 which when used as an index
into an array gets turned into a 0.
As to why the second pop would take forever, I'd
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:16PM +1000, Gautam Gopalakrishnan wrote:
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using
Are there plans in Perl 6 for string modifiers? As they are in
Hans Ginzel writes:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:16PM +1000, Gautam Gopalakrishnan wrote:
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier than using
Are there plans in Perl 6 for string
13 matches
Mail list logo
