On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > But I cannot tell whether (7) is list context or numeric context,
>
> Nope, you can't tell without the surrounding context:
>
> (7) + 0;# numeric
> $a = (7); # list
> (7) == 1; # boolean (same as (7).length =
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
> > it introduces subtle bug potentials.
> >
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
>
> Why is this one false? I'd expect it to be true just as the others.
(7) == 7
why? Otherwise, we couldn't use
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to John Williams:
> > I believe the last two cases should be:
> > (7,)== 1
> > (,) == 0
>
> Gack! It's Python's tuple syntax! Run away! Run away!
>
> Seriously, having actually programmed Python for m
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:17:42PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
> >
> > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think.
> > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the
> > last value.)
>
> This kind of clever magic
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:02:52PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> > If this is the case, then can you also have:
> >
> > (,7)
> >
> > What is its length?
>
> Hmm, it's a syntax error in perl5.
I'd advocate it continuing to be a syntax error in perl 6.
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> > I believe the last two cases should be:
> >
> > (7,)== 1
> > (,) == 0
> >
> > Because its the perl6 comma that creates the list, not the parenthesis.
> >
> > ~ John Williams
>
> If this is the case, then can you also have:
>
> (,7)
>
>
According to John Williams:
> I believe the last two cases should be:
> (7,)== 1
> (,) == 0
Gack! It's Python's tuple syntax! Run away! Run away!
Seriously, having actually programmed Python for money (no smiley --
it was NOT fun), I can say that this syntactical hack would be
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
> > it introduces subtle bug potentials.
> >
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
> > () == 0 # true?
>
> I believe the last two cases should be:
>
> (7,)== 1
> (,) == 0
>
> B
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, David Whipp wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
> >
> > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think.
> > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the
> > last value.)
>
> This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> According to Luke Palmer:
> > I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this:
> >
> > my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") );
>
> Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in
>
> my @v = ( &func() );
>
> that &func is called
According to David Whipp:
> (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> (7,8) == 2 # true
> (7) == 1 # false
> () == 0 # true?
Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same
problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax!
Larry, I strongly suggest that making () act in any way like [
Larry wrote:
> : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
>
> It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think.
> (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the
> last value.)
This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
it introduces subtle bug potentials.
(7,8,9) ==
According to Luke Palmer:
> I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this:
>
> my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") );
Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in
my @v = ( &func() );
that &func is called in a scalar context.
--
Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -
Here is a discussion thread of Exegesis 5
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/08/22/exegesis5.html at
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/02/08/23/1232230.shtml?tid=145
But the signal/noise is too low, with side tracks into
Monty Python etc.
In section "Smarter alternatives" there is this co
> >I was just thinking that $((1,2,3)) is also the same as [1,2,3],
> >and shorter than scalar(1,2,3).
> >
> I wonder if you can't just use $(1, 2, 3) to the same effect.
I think you can. I was under the impression that the C comma was dying,
so that would have to make a list or err.
> Al
John Williams wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
>>: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>>: >
>>: > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
>>: >
>>: > $arrayref = (1,2,3);
>>:
>>: That wou
Personally, I like the looks of
sub foo($a, $b is given) { ... }
> Does this mean that we allow/encourage uses of $_ other than as a default
> for an optional argument? I think it would be less confusing and
> error-prone to associate the underscore-aliasing with the parameter $_
> wil
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
> : On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> : >
> : > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
> : >
> : > $arrayref = (1,2,3);
> :
> : That would seem to obviate the need for
> basic.t 2/2
> basic_2.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol
> _internal_exception
I thought I submitted a patch for this to the bug list but I guess it was
eaten or malformatted... the list of exported symbols for win32
(config/gen/libparrot_def/libparrot_def.in) only includes the emb
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: > The current thinking as of Zurich is that the "given" passes in
: > separate from the ordinary parameters:
: >
: > sub ($a,$b,$c) is given($x) {...}
: >
: > That binds the dynamically surrounding $_ to $x as
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: >
: > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
: >
: > $arrayref = (1,2,3);
:
: That would seem to obviate the need for brackets to define array
: references. Is there any
Larry said:
> BTW, latest leaning is toward = rather than //= for parameter
> defaults, ...
Horray!
Sorry. Couldn't resist. :-)
-angel
"Simple men are happy with simple presents"
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> The current thinking as of Zurich is that the "given" passes in
> separate from the ordinary parameters:
>
> sub ($a,$b,$c) is given($x) {...}
>
> That binds the dynamically surrounding $_ to $x as an out-of-band
> parameter. Can also bind to $_ to mak
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: > But if a fast implementation needs to keep pointers into a string
: > rather than offsets from the beginning, we're asking for core dumps if
: > the string is modified out from under the pointers, or we have to
On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I assumed that's what C was. It does have the disadvantage of
: looking like variable assignment, though.
BTW, latest leaning is toward = rather than //= for parameter defaults,
since it can, in fact, be undef if the parameter is supplied, while //=
seems to
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6:
>
> $arrayref = (1,2,3);
That would seem to obviate the need for brackets to define array
references. Is there any case where [1,2,3] would be needed instead of
(1,2,3)?
Al
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> I have a sudden need to do signed 16-bit integer math in PASM. Any
> suggestions on where to begin?
Does shifting everything left by 16 bits (on 32-bit platforms) to operate
on, then shifting it back to the right to use, work?
/s
On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 10:36, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
:
: > : (An aside: it strikes me that you could use C as a scoped lexical
: > : alias, i.e.
: > : given $bar -> $foo {
: > : print $foo;
: > : }
:
: > Sur
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> But if a fast implementation needs to keep pointers into a string
> rather than offsets from the beginning, we're asking for core dumps if
> the string is modified out from under the pointers, or we have to
> adjust all known pointers any time the string ma
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: Larry Wall:
: # That binds the dynamically surrounding $_ to $x as an
: # out-of-band parameter. Can also bind to $_ to make it the
: # current topic.
:
: The problem I have with that is this:
:
: sub for_trace(*@array, &block) {
: l
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 10:39, Larry Wall wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : Is that "any list" as oppopsed to "any array"? Or is that arrayref in a
> : numeric context the length of the array? In other words does this do
> : what I think I think it does?
> :
> : $shouldbe3 = (1,
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 10:36, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
> : (An aside: it strikes me that you could use C as a scoped lexical
> : alias, i.e.
> : given $bar -> $foo {
> : print $foo;
> : }
> Sure, though it also aliases to $_.
>
Does that mean
Larry Wall:
# That binds the dynamically surrounding $_ to $x as an
# out-of-band parameter. Can also bind to $_ to make it the
# current topic.
The problem I have with that is this:
sub for_trace(*@array, &block) {
loop($_=0; $_ < @array; $_++) {
On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Is that "any list" as oppopsed to "any array"? Or is that arrayref in a
: numeric context the length of the array? In other words does this do
: what I think I think it does?
:
: $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0;
It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 pro
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: Aaron Sherman:
: # topicalize: To default to C<$_> in a prototype (thus
: # acquiring the caller's current topic).
:
: Well, to topicalize a region of code is actually to specify a different
: topic, that is, a different value for $_. For example:
:
:
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 04:14, Larry Wall wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> : > their names. also if you use a scalar to grab something which is in a
> : > quantified outer rule what is put in the var? a ref to a list of the
> : > grabbed things?
> :
> : *nod* Something I'd like to kno
I have a sudden need to do signed 16-bit integer math in PASM. Any
suggestions on where to begin?
I'd rather not re-invent this wheel if someone else has a better idea. And
if I do, where can I find good tools for it?
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #17455]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=17455 >
This patch changes the register and constant table addressing in the
produced core_
the tests under t/src currently fail on Win32 (with MSVC++ 6.0).
the first problem is that it needs another build step (make shared)
which is not mentioned anywhere. linking the programs require a
libparrot.lib which is not built by the standard make target.
probably it should be a prerequisite f
2. Proposal for _keyed opcodes
--
The thread with subject "pdd06_pasm, pdd08_keys: _keyed ops" clearly
showes the shortcomings of the current _keyed opcodes and the
implementation of these.[1]
My first proposal WRT a solution (modifying the run loop) did not earn
much
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Steve Fink wrote:
: What should this do:
:
: my $x = "the letter x";
: print "yes" if $x =~ /the { $x .= "!" } .* !/;
Depends. I think it may be necessary for speed and safety reasons
to set COW on the string we're matching, so that you're always matching
against the or
On 20 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: > their names. also if you use a scalar to grab something which is in a
: > quantified outer rule what is put in the var? a ref to a list of the
: > grabbed things?
:
: *nod* Something I'd like to know.
Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will m
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes:
>> actually i just had another thought. you don't need any of the $foo :=
>> stuff as the match tree will have it all for you.
SC> Yes, but it's nice to be able to access the captured thin
43 matches
Mail list logo
