On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Brandon S Allbery KF8NH
wrote:
> On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
>> On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
>>> Aaron Sherman wrote:
> In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The
On 7/28/10 8:07 PM, Michael Zedeler wrote:
> On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
>> Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
>>> No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued
>>> use of
>>> ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does "
Jon Lang wrote:
I don't know enough about Unicode to suggest how to solve this. All I can
say is that my example above should never return a valid Range object unless
there is a way I can specify my own ordering and I use it.
That actually says something: it says that we may want to reconsider
On 2010-07-29 02:19, Jon Lang wrote:
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Jon Lang wrote:
This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
notion that "aardvark".."apple" can be used to match any word in the
Sorry, probably not anymore.
I'm making an effort to go through the queue and keep things up to date,
hopefully new
patches won't languish like this one.
Thanks for the patch, and please try out Rakudo * tomorrow.
On Wed Jul 28 17:17:34 2010, r...@hoelz.ro wrote:
> I submitted these patches ov
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
>> Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
>> things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
>> help it.
>
> Can I get an Amen? Amen!
> --
> Mark J.
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>> Can I get an Amen? Amen!
>>> --
>>> Mark J. Reed
>>
>> +1. I'm agnostic ;>
>
> Militant? :) ( http://tinyurl.com/3xjgxnl )
>
> No
Michael Zedeler wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> This is definitely something for the Unicode crowd to look into. But
>> whatever solution you come up with, please make it compatible with the
>> notion that "aardvark".."apple" can be used to match any word in the
>> dictionary that comes between those
I submitted these patches over a year ago...are they even relevant
anymore?
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:51:12 -0700
"Will Coleda via RT" wrote:
> On Sat Jul 25 17:20:40 2009, hoelzro wrote:
> > See the patches' summaries for details.
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding, but these patches no longer
On 2010-07-29 01:39, Jon Lang wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does "a" .. "b" include "æther"?
This is where Germans and Swedes,
On 2010-07-29 00:24, Dave Whipp wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp
wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have
0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
should be
unordered -- that is,
for
Aaron Sherman wrote:
>> In smart-match context, "a".."b" includes "aardvark".
>
>
> No one has yet explained to me why that makes sense. The continued use of
> ASCII examples, of course, doesn't help. Does "a" .. "b" include "æther"?
> This is where Germans and Swedes, for example, don't agree, but
Darren Duncan wrote:
> Does "..." also come with the 4 variations of endpoint inclusion/exclusion?
>
> If not, then it should, as I'm sure many times one would want to do this,
> say:
>
> for 0...^$n -> {...}
You can toggle the inclusion/exclusion of the ending condition by
choosing between "..."
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp
>> wrote:
>>
>> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
>>> as
>>> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp
>> wrote:
>>
>> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
>>> as
>>> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should
Darren Duncan wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say "0.0 .. 1.0" instead.
-- Darren Duncan
That would be inconsistent. $x ~~ 0..1 means 0 <= $x <= 1. The f
Dave Whipp wrote:
Similarly (0..1).Seq should most likely return Real numbers
No it shouldn't, because the endpoints are integers.
If you want Real numbers, then say "0.0 .. 1.0" instead.
-- Darren Duncan
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
unordered -- that is,
for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
is treated as
for (
Darren Duncan wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed.
I would rather that ".." stay with intervals and "..." with generators.
Another thing to consider if one is looking at huffmanization is how often the
versions that exclude en
Aaron Sherman wrote:
The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed. ".."
has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and "..." is
probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
of quotes, commas and the basic, C-derived math and log
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed. ".."
> has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and "..." is
> probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
> of quotes, com
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> The more I look at this, the more I think ".." and "..." are reversed. ".."
> has a very specific and narrow usage (comparing ranges) and "..." is
> probably going to be the most broadly used operator in the language outside
> of quotes, co
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
> unordered -- that is,
>
> for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
> for (0...10).p
Moritz Lenz wrote:
I fear what Perl 6 needs is not to broaden the range of discussion even
further, but to narrow it down to the essential points. Personal opinion
only.
OK, as a completely serious proposal, the semantics of "for 0..10 { ...
}" should be for the compiler to complain "sorry, t
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Moritz Lenz wrote:
>> Dave Whipp wrote:
>>>for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>>> is treated as
>>>for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
>>
>> Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
>
> Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
> think I will:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 19:09, Will Coleda wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Patrick R. Michaud
> wrote:
>
> > I said a bit more about it as well: I think we should just eliminate
> > the pod from the README file altogether, and leave it as plain text.
>
Ah, well, since that was what
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
is treated as
for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
Sorry, I have to ask. Are you serious? Really?
Ah, to reply, or not to reply, to rhetorical sarcasm ... In this case, I
think I will:
Was my specific proposal entirely serio
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Chris Fields wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
>> Can I get an Amen? Amen!
>> --
>> Mark J. Reed
>
> +1. I'm agnostic ;>
Militant? :) ( http://tinyurl.com/3xjgxnl )
Nothing inherently religious about "amen" (or me), but I'll accept
"+
On Wed Nov 25 15:16:33 2009, masak wrote:
> $ cat test.p6
> my $var;
> my $var
>
> $ perl6 --target=pir --output=test.pir test.p6
> Redeclaration of variable $var
>
> $ cat test.pir
> 1
>
> $ perl6 --target=past test.p6
> Redeclaration of variable $var
> "past" => 1
>
> masak pasted "jnthn: ev
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
> Keep it simple, folks! There are enough corner cases in Perl 6 as
> things stand; we don't need to be introducing more of them if we can
> help it.
Can I get an Amen? Amen!
--
Mark J. Reed
On Fri Sep 04 00:06:21 2009, equinox wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I converted this into pir...using rakudo-2009-07.
>
> my $p=0;
> my $str=" a a b ";
>
> while (substr($str,$p)~~/(a)|(b)/) #~~ is instread of =~
> {
> print "match found at $p>>{$0 // "not found"}<< or >>{$2 // "not
> found"}<<\n"; #
On Thu Jun 17 05:47:40 2010, q...@cono.org.ua wrote:
> 15:37 <@jnthn> rakudo: ("62.76.96.200", "62.76.96.201", "62.76.96.202"
> ... "62.76.96.223").perl.say
> 15:37 <+p6eval> rakudo cb0e95: OUTPUT«("62.76.96.200", "62.76.96.201",
> "62.76.96.202")»
> 15:37 <@jnthn> rakudo: ("62.76.96.200", "62.76.
On Thu Jun 17 05:47:40 2010, q...@cono.org.ua wrote:
> 15:37 <@jnthn> rakudo: ("62.76.96.200", "62.76.96.201", "62.76.96.202"
> ... "62.76.96.223").perl.say
> 15:37 <+p6eval> rakudo cb0e95: OUTPUT«("62.76.96.200", "62.76.96.201",
> "62.76.96.202")»
> 15:37 <@jnthn> rakudo: ("62.76.96.200", "62.76.
On Sat Sep 26 10:56:40 2009, dolmen wrote:
> Evaluation of $*OUT.&printf does not gives a result consistent with
> $*OUT.&say
>
> rakudo: say $*OUT.&printf.WHAT;
> rakudo e33d20: OUTPUT«elements() not implemented in class
> 'Sub'in Main (/tmp/iPwK5u8ApO:0)»
>
> rakudo: say $*OUT.&say.WHAT;
>
On Sat Sep 26 10:56:40 2009, dolmen wrote:
> Evaluation of $*OUT.&printf does not gives a result consistent with
> $*OUT.&say
>
> rakudo: say $*OUT.&printf.WHAT;
> rakudo e33d20: OUTPUT«elements() not implemented in class
> 'Sub'in Main (/tmp/iPwK5u8ApO:0)»
>
> rakudo: say $*OUT.&say.WHAT;
>
TSa wrote:
> Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
> test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from && to ||:
>
> $a .. $b # means $a <= $_ && $_ <= $b if $a < $b
> $b .. $a # means $b <= $_ || $_ <= $a if $a < $b
This is the same sort of discontinuity
> Swapping the endpoints could mean swapping inside test to outside
> test. The only thing that is needed is to swap from && to ||:
>
> $a .. $b # means $a <= $_ && $_ <= $b if $a < $b
> $b .. $a # means $b <= $_ || $_ <= $a if $a < $b
I think that's what "not", "!" are for!
On Wednesday, 28. July 2010 05:12:52 Michael Zedeler wrote:
> Writing ($a .. $b).reverse doesn't make any sense if the result were a
> new Range, since Ranges should then only be used for inclusion tests (so
> swapping endpoints doesn't have any meaningful interpretation), but
> applying .reverse c
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:11:40PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:29:42 -0700, "Moritz Lenz via RT"
>> said:
>>
>> > Thank you for your patch.
>> > I know I promised to apply it, but pmichaud++, our pumpking,
# New Ticket Created by Tadeusz Sośnierz
# Please include the string: [perl #76772]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=76772 >
Here's a patch adding an interface to Parrot's stat Opcode in Rakudo.
I've consulted
yary wrote:
> though would a parallel batch of an anonymous block be more naturally written
> as
> all(0...10) -> $x { ... } # Spawn 11 threads
No,
hyper for 0..10 -> $x { ... } # spawn as many threads
# as the compiler thinks are reasonable
I think one (already specced) syntax for the
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
> unordered -- that is,
>
> for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
> for (0...10).pic
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Will Coleda via RT
wrote:
>
> +1 on this patch (at least in spirit) from me, but I cannot apply it
> (probably because it was
> inlined in the ticket.) Can you add it as an attachment?
>
> Thanks!
in attachment
--
Varyanick I. Alex
icq: 102 575 440
skype: cono.
Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10
> as a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range
> should be unordered -- that is,
>
>for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
>for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
Sorry
> new error:
>
> > my $a = 'abc'; say $a[1];
> ===SORRY!===
> .[1] out of range for type Str()
>
I believe this is the correct behavior per the specification.
Pm
On Wed Jul 28 09:46:16 2010, pmichaud wrote:
> The spec changed to use $*VM, and Rakudo now implements that.
>
> > say $*VM
> /home/pmichaud/rakudo/parrot_install/bin
> >
>
> Pm
Looks like t/spec has not yet caught up - leaving with moritz++ for
spectests.
--
Will "Coke" Coleda
Dave Whipp wrote:
> To squint at this slightly, in the context that we already have 0...1e10 as
> a sequence generator, perhaps the semantics of iterating a range should be
> unordered -- that is,
>
> for 0..10 -> $x { ... }
>
> is treated as
>
> for (0...10).pick(*) -> $x { ... }
>
> Then the wh
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:11:40PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 10:29:42 -0700, "Moritz Lenz via RT"
> said:
>
> > Thank you for your patch.
> > I know I promised to apply it, but pmichaud++, our pumpking, spoke out
> > against it, indicating that having now file named REA
The spec changed to use $*VM, and Rakudo now implements that.
> say $*VM
/home/pmichaud/rakudo/parrot_install/bin
>
Pm
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
On Thu Nov 19 02:41:01 2009, sco...@dd.com.au wrote:
> Picked up a compile time problem with Rakudo today. It is actually
>Parrot that uses perl5 to calculate which libraries and headers to
>use, and it was using invalid/old entries between an OS upgrade on
>Mac OS X. This was fixed by
On Wed Sep 16 14:53:40 2009, masak wrote:
> $ perl6 -e 'my $a = 0; loop while $a < 10 { say $a++ }'
> Confused at line 1, near "{ say $a++"
> [...]
>
> I think the desired syntax is 'repeat while', not 'loop while'. The
> compiler could give a hint to that effect. Ditto 'loop until'.
Now gives th
On Sun Aug 16 05:49:20 2009, masak wrote:
> rakudo: role Maybe[::T] { role Just[T] {} }; say
Maybe[Int].new()
> rakudo 0d4fe0: OUTPUT«Potential internal error: bindability
> check may have done more than just binding. [...]
This no longer generates an error, but the followup that the OP says
s
On Fri Jul 24 02:41:50 2009, masak wrote:
> rakudo: sub foo(:$bar) { say $bar }; class A { has $.bar;
> method baz() { foo(:$.bar) } }; A.new(:bar).baz
> rakudo b19862: OUTPUT«Symbol '$1bar' not predeclared in baz
> [...]
> :)
> * masak submits rakudobug
> now, are my expectations right in this
On Sat Mar 06 10:12:34 2010, ml...@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de wrote:
> Rakudo 2d9808d19ba45c09f61a4c6fc4b4b7159ea760cc:
>
> $ cat foo.pl
> my $x;
> so $x = 1;
>
> $ ./perl6 foo.pl
> Cannot assign to readonly value
> current instr.: '&die' pc 16799 (src/builtins/Junction.pir:347)
> called from Sub '&
On Thu Mar 04 14:53:46 2010, masak wrote:
> rakudo: say 1%%1
> rakudo 37e574: OUTPUT«Method 'postcircumfix:<[ ]>' not found
> for invocant of class '' [...]
> ooh!
> * masak submits rakudobug
>
> What's postcircumfix:<[ ]> got to do with it? :)
This now outputs 1, and is covered in S03-metaops
On Mon Feb 15 01:22:09 2010, masak wrote:
> rakudo: say &1
> rakudo 70667a: OUTPUT«Method 'postcircumfix:<[ ]>' not found
> for invocant of class '' [...]
> That one was slightly less than awesome.
> * masak submits rakudobug
Output is now:
rakudo: say &1;
rakudo 2808a5: OUTPUT«Any()»
--
On Wed Sep 16 14:47:06 2009, masak wrote:
> $ perl6 -e 'class A { method foo(%*opts) {} }'
> Invalid twigil used in signature parameter. at line 1, near ") {} }"
>
> Suggest making the error message include "did you mean '*%opts'?".
This doesn't error now:
$ ./perl6 -e 'class A { method foo(%*op
Michael Zedeler wrote:
This is exactly why I keep writing posts about Ranges being defunct as
they have been specified now. If we accept the premise that Ranges are
supposed to define a kind of linear membership specification between two
starting points (as in math), it doesn't make sense that
59 matches
Mail list logo
