On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:13:56AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Does
($k, $v) == pop %hash;
or
($k, $v) == %hash.pop;
make sense to anyone except me?
It's clear to me.
The only thing is that, right off the top of my head, I can't see
where it would be used. Since the order in which the
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:02:01PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Even if you fixed the =/and precedence with parens, to read
my $x = (any(2,3,4,5) and any(4,5,6,7));
then I think the result is still that $x contains any(4,5,6,7).
Funny. I thought $x would
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:45:59AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
That's spelled
loop {
$foo = readline;
...do stuff with $foo...
} while ( $foo );
these days.
Larry
Cool, perfect. Thanks.
--Dks
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Cantrell wrote:
Jim Keenan wrote:
Using the standard Test::More framework, is it
possible to test whether what was printed to a
filehandle matches a predetermined string or list of
strings?
Would IO::Capture be of help here?
And here are the fruits of my application of IO::Capture: a
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:02:01PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
[...]
If this is the case, then this entire discussion collapses into how to
best convert arrays into junctions and junctions into arrays. Perl's
existing abilities to edit arrays should be more than sufficient for
editing
Going to get the hang of this sending to a list thing soon.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Thomas Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:40:03 +
Subject: Re: Fwd: Junctive puzzles.
To: Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If only I could just do something like:
My $0.02:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me. What about refactoring it into a set of test
functions that handle it for the user automatically? Just quickly off the
cuff, what about a test module
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
perl6 -MData::Dumper -e 'print Dumper(any(2,3,4,5) any(4,5,6,7))'
...then I could easily find out for myself. Until that happy day I
will have to ask you guys to clear it up for me.
Seems today is indeed that happy day:
%
Very impressive. Has inspired me to learn some Haskell.
Thanks,
Tom
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:17:35 +0800, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
perl6 -MData::Dumper -e 'print Dumper(any(2,3,4,5) any(4,5,6,7))'
...then I could
HaloO All,
it just occured to me that the lone single character reference
operator '\' is badly Huffman coded! These days references are
pretty much automagical. So my idea is to replace '\' with e.g.
'\*' which puts it in opposition to the flattening '*' and '**'
operators. And there should be a
David Golden wrote:
My $0.02:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me.
Agreed.
What about refactoring it into a set of test
functions that handle it for the user automatically? Just quickly off
the
Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
my $x = 1|2|3; # any
my $x = 1^2^3; # one
my $x = 123; # all
my $x = 1\2\3; # none
[...]
if $a $b { ... } # and
if $a || $b { ... } # or
if $a ^^ $b { ... } # xor
if $a // $b { ... } # err
if $a \\ $b { ... } # nor
Well?
that's all very Huffy (short
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:48:29PM +0100, Thomas Sandla wrote:
Accepting the above completes the junction constructing operators:
my $x = 1|2|3; # any
my $x = 1^2^3; # one
my $x = 123; # all
my $x = 1\2\3; # none
Pugs currently implements binary infix ! as the none
Thomas Sandla writes:
This gives:
my @x = (1,2,3);
my $x = [1,2,3];
my $x = ref (1,2,3); # also without ()?
my $x = \* (1,2,3); # also without ()?
Accepting the above completes the junction constructing operators:
my $x = 1|2|3; # any
my $x = 1^2^3; # one
my $x
Autrijus Tang wrote:
as well as the non-short-circuitting !! logical operator, and the
lower-precedenced nor.
I'm not sure if '!' fits the heavy weight perl6 grammar. But why is
'nor' not short-circuitting? It only continues when the left side is
true --- like '||' and '//'. At least this is what
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:45:33PM +0100, Thomas Sandla wrote:
Autrijus Tang wrote:
as well as the non-short-circuitting !! logical operator, and the
lower-precedenced nor.
I'm not sure if '!' fits the heavy weight perl6 grammar. But why is
'nor' not short-circuitting? It only continues
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
Is there another operator that takes the intersection of two
junctions, such that any(2,3,4,5) *some op* any(4,5,6,7) would result
in any(4,5)?
Yes. In Pugs 6.0.3 (released one minute ago), that operator is
simply called :
%
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:30:24AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me. What about refactoring it into a set of test
functions that handle it for the user
On Feb 11, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:30:24AM -0500, David Golden wrote:
Very nice integration of IO::Capture.
I think this is very promising, but all the start(), stop() calls seem
overly repetitive to me. What about refactoring it into a set of test
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Friday 11 February 2005 21:08, David H. Adler wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:28:30PM -0500, James E Keenan wrote:
And here are the fruits of my application of IO::Capture: a module
with three subroutines which have proven useful in the project
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:28:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:42:06AM +, Thomas Yandell wrote:
Is there another operator that takes the intersection of two
junctions, such that any(2,3,4,5) *some op* any(4,5,6,7) would result
in any(4,5)?
Yes. In Pugs
Woops! I just realized I factored something wrongly...!?
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:22:51PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
# return true if $x is a factor of $y
sub is_factor (Scalar $x, Scalar $y) { $y % $x == 0 }
[...]
# a (somewhat inefficient?) is_prime test for $bar
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:54:39AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Damian writes:
Junctions have an associated boolean predicate that's preserved across
operations on the junction. Junctions also implicitly distribute
across operations, and rejunctify the results.
My brain is having trouble fully
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
For example, with the less than or equals (=) relational operator,
the expression
any(2,3,4) = 3
becomes
any( 2 = 3,# 1 (true)
3 = 3,# 1 (true)
4 = 3 # 0 (false)
)
which ultimately becomes any(1,0), because = is an operator that
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:59:04 -0800, David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:13:56AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
Does
($k, $v) == pop %hash;
or
($k, $v) == %hash.pop;
make sense to anyone except me?
... the only time it's useful is
if you want to process
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:42:42PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
This collapse is probably wrong. In particular,
any($a, $b)any($b, $c)
is not the same as
any($a, $b, $c)
Right. Teaches me that implementing nontrivial features on 3am
just-before-sleep is probably a bad idea.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:28:15AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
Yes. In Pugs 6.0.3 (released one minute ago), that operator is
simply called :
I satnd corrected. The implementation is incorrect.
Pugs 6.0.4 has just been released (now with the eval primitive!),
it has cleaned up the collapsing
Rod Adams wrote:
I would argue that this sort of relational comparison is of limited
usefulness.
Well, except junctions hold more information than the simple comparisons
I've given here. For example, a junction can have a value like:
$x = ($a $b) ^ ($c $d)
which is true only if $a
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 02:12:51PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I briefly grepped through the apocalypses/synopses and couldn't
find the answer -- how do I tell a scalar context to expect a
junction of values? In particular, is there a way for me to pass
a junction to a routine without it
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
$x = $Value | 'Default';
instead of :
$x = $Value || 'Default';
Hmm, this is an interesting point. I'll let others chime in here,
as I don't have a good answer (nor am I at all authoritative on junctions).
This is merely syntax; it doesn't really have anything to do
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 04:44:04PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
BTW, I'm pretty sure there will be built-in CArray::uniq and
CList::uniq methods in Perl 6. So that's just:
@xyz = uniq @xyz;
or better still:
@xyz.=uniq;
Is there other built-in methods not found in perl5 that you
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Rod Adams wrote:
I would argue that this sort of relational comparison is of limited
usefulness.
Well, except junctions hold more information than the simple comparisons
I've given here. For example, a junction can have a value like:
$x = ($a $b) ^ ($c $d)
Damian Conway wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Ultimately I don't think I agree with the notion that sets and lists
are so different, or that sets deserve/require their own sigil.
Sets shouldn't have a sigil anyway, whether they're qualitatively
different from lists or not. A set is a *value*
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:03:26AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
I also find the following incredibly disturbing:
perl6 -e $x = 'cat'|'dog'; say $x;
dog
cat
Getting iterated executions of a statement without explicitly iterating
it bothers me greatly. I work heavily in databases, where updating
Autrijus wrote:
Is there other built-in methods not found in perl5 that you are
aware of?
Yes.
I'd like to work out declarations and implementations
of them in one sweep, if possible. :-)
Hah! Dream on! I don't think we have a canonical list anywhere (except in
Larry's head). Some non-Perl-5
On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 03:16:20PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
the toplevel sequencing only handles IO of ... types, so the junction
above will not print anything. Instead it may raise a warning of using a
Junction in a void context, or something equally ominous.
Thinking about it, that
Started on the qa-wiki. First entry: how to return an internal failure
as a proper test failure so that Test::Builder::Tester and Test::Tester
will like it.
--- Joe M.
David H. Adler wrote:
A question: is there any reason that you made this an OO module but
still show calls to the methods as functions rather than methods on the
object?
An answer: It was a quick hack based on my first day's experience with
IO::Capture::Stdout. Its original rationale was
Shawn Sorichetti wrote:
I've started working on Test::Output that is based on Schwern's TieOut
module that comes with Test::More. I'm hoping to have it released on
CPAN later tonight.
Test::Output is a self contained so that it can be included with other
modules, and no prereqs. Right now it
Tels wrote:
On Friday 11 February 2005 21:08, David H. Adler wrote:
Just askin'. :-)
In similiar line of thought:
Why verify_number_lines instead of the (much shorter :) lines?
Speaking source code is something I like, but it shouldn't gabble on :)
Oh, and why TestAuxiliary and not
40 matches
Mail list logo
