Note: this is back on-list.
> From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 01:27:55 -0600
>
> [regarding -> as a left-to-right pipe-like operator]
>
> Please do. As in, please point out on list that
> '->' is already established as a left-to-right
> flow/assignment operator so why not
On Dec-09, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> At 19:55 on 12/08/2002 PST, Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You can see the results here: http://foxglove.dnsalias.org/parrot/
>
> I'm getting a 404 on that.
Well, of course you would! Don't you know anything about the web? You
should have figured o
At 19:55 on 12/08/2002 PST, Steve Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can see the results here: http://foxglove.dnsalias.org/parrot/
I'm getting a 404 on that.
--Josh
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 06:00:40 +0100
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Damian:
> > so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
> >
> > (@foo, @bar) :=
> > part [/foo/, /bar/],
> > sort { $^b <=> $^a }
[snipped]
> so it's easy to build up more complex right-to-left pipelines, like:
>
> (@foo, @bar) :=
> part [/foo/, /bar/],
> sort { $^b <=> $^a }
> grep { $_ > 0 }
> @data;
>
>
I wo
I've gotten tired of endlessly clicking on tinderbox links to try to
figure out what's generally going wrong, so I made my computer do it
for me. Yes, I should have just made a script that runs on the
tinderbox machine or something instead of parsing Data::Dumper output,
but I didn't want to bother
Damian Conway wrote:
Ken Fox asked:
Is it correct
to think of flattening context as a lexical flattening? i.e.
only terms written with @ are flattened and the types of
the terms can be ignored?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
Sometimes array references behave as arrays, e.g.
push
# New Ticket Created by mrnobo1024
# Please include the string: [perl #18967]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=18967 >
If -g is not requested, Configure says (none requested) but puts it in the
compiler flags
David Wheeler wrote:
Ooh, I like C best. C is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with? part from? part of? partner? etc.).
You know, that's *exactly* why I like C better. ;-)
Damian
Ken Fox asked:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)?
Yes.
The array refs in @parts are not flattened though
On Sunday, December 8, 2002, at 10:20 AM, Smylers wrote:
I dislike C cos it's a small typo away from C.
Yes, but I would expect to be a compile-time error, since the
signatures are different. The same can't be said for r?index.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
David Wheeler wrote:
> On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> > Ian Remmler decloaked and wrote:
> >
> > > I keep thinking C would be nice ...
> >
> > C is quite good. Though I still like C best.
>
> Ooh, I like C best.
I dislike C cos it's a small typo away from
On Saturday, December 7, 2002, at 10:47 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I keep thinking C would be nice, or maybe
C. Just a thought...
C is quite good. Though I still like C best.
Ooh, I like C best. C is too easy to interpret as other
things (partition? part with? part from? part of? partner? et
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.namespace WHILE_BLOCK
You should make uniq namespace identifiers (WHILE_BLOCK_$w, $w++). The
generated variables (WHILE_BLOCK::i) keep there life[1] after end of the
namespace and might collide e.g. with ".local num i" in the next while
block.
[1]
Damian Conway wrote:
sub part ($classifier, *@list) {
return @parts;
}
Given the original example
(@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [ /foo/, /bar/, /zap/ ] @source;
this binds the contents of @parts to (@foo,@bar,@zap)? The
array refs in @parts are not flattened though. Is it c
On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 11:28:24AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> We could certainly do that. But let's call it C.
I usually just lurk here, but I just had to pipe in. :) I'm not sure the
meaning of the name C would be obvious to someone who hadn't seen
it before. I keep thinking C would be nice,
On Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:16:43 +, Brad Hughes wrote:
> In any case, the choice of default base index is less important for Perl than
> for other languages given how seldom arrays in Perl are accessed by index as
> opposed to manipulated by push, pop, for $x (@array) loops and such.
I slice a lo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Of course, as long as you can call C without explicitly loading
> a module, it's merely a philosophical distinction as to whether
> C is core or not.
Well, no; it's an implementation distinction too. Non-core methods
1) don't mean anything special to
> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 19:10:30 +1100
> From: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> There are actually four types of junction:
>
> conjunction: all(@elements)
> disjunction: any(@elements)
> abjunction:one(@elements)
> injunction: none(@elements)
Oh yeah...
>
Luke Palmer wrote about:
=head1 Perl 6 and Set Theory
This document will introduce a new way of thinking about some Perl 6
constructs. In addition, it proposes some minor changes that would
help this way of thinking be more consistent. These changes may make
Perl 6 a better language in general
20 matches
Mail list logo
