> > On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:51:29AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, you can't reference a slice! Where the heck does the
> > > reference point? I would probably do:
> >
> > Of course not. I presume it points to something non-existent just like
> > a substring reference would in
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:51:29AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Actually, you can't reference a slice! Where the heck does the
> > reference point? I would probably do:
>
> Of course not. I presume it points to something non-existent just like
> a substring reference would in perl5 :-)
>
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:51:29AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Actually, you can't reference a slice! Where the heck does the
> reference point? I would probably do:
Of course not. I presume it points to something non-existent just like
a substring reference would in perl5 :-)
$ perl -le '$a =
Sean O'Rourke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>> Is there a better way to locate the next entry, either by an integer idx
>> or by a key or some other means?
> It's constant time if you keep a bucket index and a pointer to the
> current hash bucket in the i
> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> > > Will it be possible (or sane even) to bind a variable to an array slice
> > It *should* be, since it's possible (if ungainly) to do it in Perl 5:
>
> Ouch, blatant abuse of perl5's aliasing with @_ and globs ;) Can I also
> assume that you can al
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> This is a first attempt to iterate over hashes.
> The hash is scanned linearly, until the given integer index is found.
>
> Is there a better way to locate the next entry, either by an integer idx
> or by a key or some other means?
It's constant time i
This is a first attempt to iterate over hashes.
The hash is scanned linearly, until the given integer index is found.
Is there a better way to locate the next entry, either by an integer idx
or by a key or some other means?
leo
Clinton Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm *sure* this is something else, and it reared its ugly head only in the last week.
I can't reproduce this. Its counting up to 100 by 0.5 with all run cores.
Please try:
$ ../../../parrot --no-gc TARG_test.imc
When the problem is gone here, its very
