On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Jon Lang wrote:
> Buddha Buck wrote:
>> I don't think a Num is necessary, but I could see a Rat.
>
> As is, is Duration implemented by means of a Num, or a Rat? Whichever
> it is, that's the type that the difference of two Instan
Jon Lang asked me if I intended to send this message to him privately.
The answer is "No"...
-- Forwarded message ------
From: Buddha Buck
Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: dimensionality in Perl 6
To: Jon Lang
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Jon L
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Moritz Lenz wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 06:16 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> That is, a C<$value> is an eigenstate of a C<$junction> if-and-only-if:
>>
>> $value !~~ Junction && $value ~~ $junction
>
> In general this definition makes it impossible to return a list of
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> The biggest difference proposed by the use of TAI is that when you ask
> for the number of seconds between "2008-12-31T23:59:59+" and
> "2009-01-01T00:00:00+" you'll get 2 because of the leap second. But
> you don't need to know how ma
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Forrest Sheng Bao wrote:
> Oh, I mean both Perl 5 and Perl 6. I couldn't find proper list to ask this
> question. So I asked in this list.
I'm not sure perl6-language is the proper place to be asking about the
time-complexity of hashes in Perl6, or at least, not th
Resent to list as I intended to in the first place
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
>>
>> A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
>> type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
>> constructed from st
Resending to list
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce
> some ideas.
>
>
>
> Secondly, regarding the Bool type, I think it would be useful for Perl 6 to
> define the full complement of dyad
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Jon Lang wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, John Macdonald wrote:
>> Yep, I've done that.
>>
>> But comparing the difference in effort between:
>>
>> - press a key
>> - Google for a web page that has the right character set, cut, refocus, paste
>>
>> means
Sorry to reply to the wrong comment, but I lost the original thread in
my mail archives and didn't notice this until now.
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 1:54 PM, John M. Dlugosz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
>
> >
> > The fundamental flaw of metric mmd is th
On 11/22/06, Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First of all, thanks a lot for your comments.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2006 at 06:43:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> >{
> > my $x = something();
> > if $x==1 {
> >...code...
> > }
> >}
> >
Keep in mind that I am only an egg, and I am putting my intuition and
experience with similar languages to mind. Perl6 might be doing
things differently than I expect.
On 11/22/06, Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To add some more confusion to what Yuval wrote:
In general, it doesn't
On 10/23/06, Markus Laire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/23/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Markus Laire writes:
>
> > Does anyone know if programming languages are protected by copyright
> > or not?
>
> Code can be copyrighted; ideas can't be.
Yes, but the syntax of the programming
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:11:02 +0100, The Perl 6 Summarizer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2004-09-17
>Another week, another summary, and I'm running late. So:
>
> This week in perl6-compiler
>
> Bootstrapping the grammar
>Uri Guttman had some thoughts
Originally sent to Austin alone by accident
Austin Hastings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
role A {has Cat $.x;}
role B {has Dog $.x;}
class Foo {does Cat; does Dog;}
my Foo $bar;
$bar.x; # Is this a Cat or a Dog?
If, however, two roles try
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
re-open the RFC process?
RFC's are proposals before the comments.
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an i
Smylers wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm, in
either direction:
$in -> lex -> parse -> codify -> optimize -> $out; # L2R
$out <- optimize <- codify <- parse <- lex <- $in; # R2L
It's clear, from looking at either of
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2003, at 09:51 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
From: "Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So 'if' and friends are just (native) subroutines with prototypes like:
IIRC it's not that pretty, unfortunately, if you
Brent Dax wrote:
Incorrect. The translation sequence is:
@in ~> map { ... } ~> grep { ... } ~> @out
((@in ~> map { ... }) ~> grep { ... }) ~> @out
((@in.map({ ... })).grep({ ... })) ~> @out
@out=((@in.map({ ... })).grep({ ... }))
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]({ ... }).grep({ ... })
The only differen
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, to bring this thread back on track *again*, I hopefully offer this
summary.
1) Damian's idea of using ~> and <~ as L2R and R2L is well-liked. Thus:
@out = grep { ... } map { ... } @in; # (1) (perl5)
becomes any of the following:
@out = gr
Buddha Buck wrote:
Maybe, maybe not On my machine right now, it is very easy for me to
type various accented letters, like a, e, etc, making words like resume
(or is that resume) nearly as fast to type as the non-accented version
resume.
Hmmm, that's not what I wrote... On my machi
[Note: I originally sent this to Mr. Nobody alone, but that wasn't my
intent. I'm re-sending it here, where I wanted it to go in the first
place. -- bmb]
Mr. Nobody wrote:
trigraphs are actually better, even if you are unicode capable. ~> is
far
easier to type than ctrl-u-15F9E2A01 or whate
Mr. Nobody wrote:
If you and Damian think you'll get me to leave p6l this easily, forget it.
I've seen far worse flames than that.
While you were the person that Damian lost his sense of humor at, Piers
didn't identify you in this part of the summary. So I don't think Piers
was trying to ge
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using
unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about
unicode oper
Dave Whipp wrote:
Something else springs to mind. Consider the C syntax:
for 1,2,3 ~> foo -> $a { ... }
Is there any way we could unify these two operators without creating
ambiguities? If we
could, then using straight arrows would be nicer to type than the squiggly
ones.
I think I see what
Luke Palmer wrote:
I would, from the descriptions, imagine that:
@keep <~ grep /good/ <~ @list ~> grep /bad!/ ~> @throw;
Would parse as:
@keep <~ grep /good/ <~ @list;
@list ~> grep /bad!/ ~> @throw;
Nope. <~ and ~> only *rearrange* arguments, so if you only type @list
once, you can only
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I think this is one (rare) case where an UPPERCASE or unusual name might
not be a bad idea, so it will BRING ATTENTION to the fact that you're
using a unusual method.
$obj.ID;
$obj.IDENTITY;
If don't think we'll have much of a chance at teaching people to
_alwa
(resent as requested)
James Mastros wrote:
Here's my basic defintion of ID: Two things should have the same ID
if-and-only-if they will behave exactly the same, now and forevermore.
Thus, there should be one ID for all constants of the same value, which
is different from all constants of diff
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After thinking about it a little more, I'll set myself on the "yes"
side. And propose either '===' or ':=:' to do it.
Definitely '==='.
I could also see :== or =:= as well.
If we have
$obj1 = $obj2;
then presumably, ($obj1
Hey Damian...
What is the expected output of this:
my $x = 0|1; my $xsum = 0; my $xmean;
my $y = 0|1;
my $z = $x * $y; my $zsum = 0; my $zmean;
$xsum += $x.pick for 1..1000;
$xmean = $xsum / 1000;
print "Expected value of \$x is $xmean\n";
$zsum = $z.pick for 1..1000;
$zmean =
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 05:30:00PM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:04:16PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours:
sub square
Luke Palmer wrote:
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 13:49:14 -0700 (MST)
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:48:50 +1100
From: Damian Conway <
Piers Cawley wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
@a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
@b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
@c = @grades[grep 70 <= $_ < 80, @grades];
Granted, it's fairly compact as it is but I'm wo
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 12:54:12PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-11-06 at 11:43:20, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Will there be some shorter-hand way to say these?
@a = @grades[grep $_ >= 90, @grades];
@b = @grades[grep 80 <= $_ < 90, @grades];
@c = @grades[gre
Here's my current understanding of what's under discussion for for-loops:
Larry wants to eliminate the ; from the RHS of the ->, so the only thing
for needs to know about the RHS is the number and types of the
arguments. This puts the specification about how to generate those
arguments on the
Larry Wall wrote:
Maybe we should just say that you can put it anywhere that makes sense,
and let the perl parser sort out the sheep from the goats. The basic
rule is that for any op, [op] is also expected in the same place. So
if the user defines a postfix:! for factorial, they automatically g
I was wondering...
How persistant are superpositions? How pervasive are they?
I mean, will the following work?
$letters = any('a'..'z');
$digits = any('0'..'9');
$ndaTable = {
start => { $letters => 'OneLetter',
$digits => 'OneDigit' }
OneLetter => { $letters
Peter Haworth wrote:
> That *is* a logical weakening. Just because the inherited precondition is
> C<< x > 10 >>, doesn't mean that the weakened condition has to be of the form
> C<< x > 9 >> or any other value lower than 10. C<< a || b >> is weaker than
> C<< a >>
So what we are looking at is s
Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Buddha Buck writes:
>
>>I suspect that, if it makes sense to say
>>
>>$foo = &$date.method;
>>
>>then it would also make sense to say
>>
>>$date .= $foo;
>>
>>as well.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Trey Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>no strict 'refs';
>> my Date $date;
>> $date .= 'Sep 21, 1963';
>>
>>There is a method name there--'Date::Sep 21, 1963'.
>
>
> But that's my point. You wouldn't have to put the method name or the
class
> be
At 11:31 AM 06-06-2002 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>#Preliminary Perl6::Regex
># This does not have any actions, but otherwise I think is correct.
># Let me know if it's right or not.
I'm not a regex guru, but...
>use 6;
>
>grammar Perl6::Regex {
> rule metachar { <[<{(\[\])}>:*+?\\|]>
At 01:10 PM 05-21-2002 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 12:57, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> > Here's an easier one: backslash followed by the delimiter is that thing.
> > Everything else is literal.
> >
> > print 'c:\it\'s\easier\to\write\win32\paths\this\way';
> > print
At 09:45 AM 04-26-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Tim Bunce writes:
>: For perl at least I thought Larry has said that you'll be able to
>: create new ops but only give them the same precedence as any one
>: of the existing ops.
>
>Close, but not quite. What I think I said was that you can't speci
At 01:12 PM 04-23-2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>24 levels of precedence should be enough, else you can always resort to
>parens.
I would have agreed, except that I would have also said that the 14
precedence levels of C should be enough as well -- yet we seem to have
discovered uses f
At 08:58 AM 04-23-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Precedence is set with the "like' property:
>
> my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is like("but") is inline { $a but $b }
> sub operator:also ($a,$b) is like("and") is inline { $a and $b }
OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
At 05:51 PM 04-16-2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Also known as constructs you wish you hadn't discovered.
>
>So, I'm reading through Finkel and I came across the following, which
>computes the greatest common divisor of a and b (recast into perl6ish
>syntax)
>
> while {
> when $a < $b { $b
At 07:57 AM 04-03-2002 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>Mark J. Reed writes:
>: loop (my $i=0; 1; $i++) {
>:
>
>No, the scope of $i stays outside, per the previous decision. If you
>want it inside you can always make $i an official formal parameter:
>
> for 0 .. Inf -> $i { ... }
>
>I t
like:
macro let (%&)
{ &(sub { my qs(keys @_[0]) = @_; return qs(@_[1]); })(qs(values @_[1]))};
I'm not sure that that would work perfectly offhand (I suspect some
syntax tweaking would be necessary) but it's the basic idea I think
you are going for.
--
Buddha Buck
At 03:43 PM 02-13-2002 +, Dave Mitchell you wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >So in the following:
> > >
> > >my Complex $c = 3+4i;
> > >my $plain = 1.1;
> > >$plain = $c;
> > >
> > >I presume that $plain ends up as type Complex (with value 3+4i)?
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > >If so
At 11:40 AM 01-25-2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff you wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > >What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having things declared outside
> > >the braces be lexical to th
At 11:32 AM 01-24-2002 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 4:19 PM + 1/24/02, Dave Mitchell wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> That was my biggest objection. I like the thought of having a scheme
>>> pair data type. The interpreter should see it, and it should be
>>> accessed,
At 03:10 PM 09-14-2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
>I've been thinking alot about the bytecode file format lately. Its
>going to get really gross really fast when we start adding other
>(optional) sections to the code.
>
>So, with that in mind, here's what I propose:
>What do you guys think?
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 07:43 PM 9/8/2001 -0700, Wizard wrote:
> >Questions regarding Bitwise operators:
> >
> > > =item rol tx, ty, tz *
> >...
> > > =item ror tx, ty, tz *
> >
> >Are these with or without carry?
>
> That's a good question. Now that we have a list of bitwi
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, I'm whipping together the "fancy math" section of the interpreter
> assembly language. I've got:
> Can anyone think of things I've forgotten? It's been a while since I've
> done numeric work.
Uri mentioned exp(x) = e^x, but I think if you are
At 10:45 AM 09-06-2001 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > So how does that all work then? What does the parrot assembler for
> >
> > foo($x+1, $x+2, , $x+65)
>
>The arg list will be on the stack. Parrot just allocates new PMCs and
>pushes the PMC on the stack.
>
>I assume it
As a necrohipposadist (beater of dead horses), I'll add...
"Sterin, Ilya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well guess not, since something like this...
>
> {
> my ($a, $b, $c);
>
> $a = \$b;
> $b = \$c;
> $c = \$a;
> }
>
> would definitelly be hard, resource consuming to implement a circ
At 01:01 PM 08-01-2001 -0600, Sterin, Ilya wrote:
>I was just wondering if there will be any solution for the circular
>refernece memory leak (I guess you can call it a problem). Can't we keep
>information on the number of circular references in the SV structure and
>then decrement the references
At 03:55 PM 07-09-2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 03:48:27PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > Why can't a general-purpose programming language be augmented with XML for
> > internal documentation purposes?
>
>You mean like C#? :-)
I wasn't sp
At 03:07 PM 07-09-2001 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 02:36:17PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > > Don't laugh. It's here now. It's called XSLT. :-)
> >
> > Um, that's not what the article was talking about The proposal is to use
> >
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Perl came from ASCII-centric roots, so it's likely that most of our
> > biases are ASCII-centric. And for a couple of reasons, it's going to
> > be hard to deal with that:
> >
> > 1. Backwards compatability with existing Perl practice,
> >
> >
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> We probably also ought to answer the question "How accommodating to
> non-latin writing systems are we going to be?" It's an uncomfortable
> question, but one that needs asking. Answering by Larry, probably, but
> definitely asking. Perl's not real
At 01:14 PM 06-11-2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 01:05 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an
> >>> option to consider differen
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >It does bring up a deeper issue, however. Unicode is, at the moment,
> >apparently inadequate to represent at least some part of the asian
> >languages. Are the encodings currently in use less inadequ
At 06:54 PM 05-30-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:38:50PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> > while pseudocoding something I realized that it would be really
> > cool if there was another magical default shelf, like $_ or _ but
> > subtly different, that stores, if l
At 12:59 PM 05-23-2001 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>Okay, folks, here's the current conundrum:
>
>Should Parrot be a register or stack-based system, and if a register-based
>one, should we go with typed registers?
>My current thoughts are this:
>
>We have a set of N registers. They're all linke
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let it be.
>
> Not a flame, but a suggestion:
>
> let $pi be constant;
Personally, I'd rather save let for:
(let ($x,$y,$z,...) = (1,2,3,...) in { ... })
which would be equivilant to:
((sub {my ($x,$y,$z,...) = @_; ... })(1,2,3,...))
Many fu
At 01:34 PM 05-18-2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dammit, I got the example exactly backwards. Try this:
>
> >$Foo is true;
> >$Foo = 0;
> >print "Stuff" if $Foo; # *WOULD* print - "is" assigns a
> > # permanent "true" property
> >
> >$Foo as
At 08:10 PM 05-14-2001 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:56:01PM -0500, Me wrote:
> > > Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ?
> > >
> > > $foo = '1.2';
> > > @bar[$foo];
> >
> > This is an argument against conflating @ and %.
>
>No it is not.
>
> > It has no
At 10:49 AM 05-04-2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > >On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > > > And btw . . . Wouldn't
> &
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > And btw . . . Wouldn't
> >
> > $thing has property
> >
> > make more sense than
> >
> > $thing is property
>
>"$foo has true" doesn't flow as well as "$foo is true"
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > How about borr
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> >$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
>
> $bar = method $obj()
>
> would be more consistent with perl's current
>
> $object = new Cla
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> > > So why not
> > >
> >
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
> So why not
>
> $object!method("foo", "bar");
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on
a crowded p
Edward Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > beautiful. Then extending this is simple, consistent, easy to read,
> > > compatible with perl5..
> >
> > I'm not sure that that was the point I was trying to make.
> > If nothing else, the '.' would then be responsible for *three*
> > different
At 07:44 PM 04-23-2001 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>Hm, I would expect @() in a scalar context to give the
>same result as
>
> @tmp = @(...); $x = @tmp;
>
>That is, yeild the number of elements in the list.
I can see this. But unless there is a good reason, that seems like a
less-than-optimal
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:11:12PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave
> > > the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5.
> >
> > FWIW, I agre
At 11:14 AM 03-22-2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
>Please not fight on wording. For most encodings I know of, the concept of
>normalization does not even exist. What is your definition of normalization?
To me, the usual definition of "normalization' is conversion of something
into a standard form
At 06:18 PM 02-20-2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>As long as Terry Pratchett writes books faster than perl consumes quotes.
>Based on the fact that he's still very alive, we aren't in danger yet.
True... And he has some very good quotes.
>However, Larry has already commented on the danger of
Why won't this work:
As I see it, we can't guarantee that DESTROYable objects will be DESTROYed
immediately when they become garbage without a full ref-counting scheme. A
full ref-counting scheme is potentially expensive.
Even full ref-counting schemes can't guarantee proper and timely
destr
At 01:45 PM 02-12-2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
>I think having both copying-GC and refcounting-GC is a good idea. I may be
>saying a stupid thing, since I'm not a GC expert, but I think objects that
>rely on having their destructors called the soonest possible for resource
>cleanup could use a refco
At 01:14 PM 02-07-2001 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 01:35 PM 2/7/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
>>As far as I know (and I could be _very_ wrong), the primary objectives of
>>vtables are:
>>1. Allowing extensible datatypes to be created by extensions and used in
>>Perl.
>
>Secondarily, yes.
>
>>2. Ma
At 03:54 PM 12-06-2000 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Non-refcounting GC schemes are more expensive when they collect, but less
> > expensive otherwise, and it apparently is a win for the non-refcount
> > schemes.
>
>Which is why GC is intimately tied to DE
At 02:27 PM 11-30-2000 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 05:59 PM 11/30/00 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>>On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:46:26PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> > (Moved over to -internals, since it's not really a parser API thing)
>> >
>> > At 11:06 AM 11/30/00 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wro
At 05:59 PM 11-30-2000 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 12:46:26PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(Note, Dan was writing about "$a=1.2; $b=3; $c = $a + $b")
>$a=1; $b =3; $c = $a + $b
>
>
> > If they don't exist already, then something like:
> >
> > newscalar a, n
At 11:47 AM 11-30-2000 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>I forget who proposed it originally, but I thought it an excellent
>analogy, and
>an excellent model for Perl development. Like any tradecraft, there are
>masters, apprentices, and the common consumer. The apprentice shouldn't
>master, just
At 01:57 PM 10/11/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > won't be able to
> > make many conclusive pronouncements in his talk.
> >
> > I'll make sure his talk is available for all to read once it's given.
>
>Uh, what talk is that?
The talk he is giving on 14 October, where he
At 02:37 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>Seconded. If I want a language where everything is an object, I know
>where to find it. When I hack Perl, I want things to be optimized for
>those "90% text, 10% something else" problems that Perl so well fills.
>I don't want text to become
# return from bar
}
Then we'd have an interesting, restricted form of continuations to play
with.
>
> -Nate
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the ch
is the same as
>
> @{$ary[0]}
>
> Or doe people find it intuitive that this returns a slice of an array
> pointed to by $ary?
I'd find
my @a = @array[0;];
to be nicer -- no references visible, unambiguous, same number of
characters as @$array[0], and symm
RFC 207(v2) was posted several days ago with substantial changes from
v1. Since then, I have seen little (if any) discussion of the new or old
versions. As such, I am assuming that the RFC is acceptable as it
stands. As such, unless I hear otherwise before 28 September 2000, 5:00PM
New York
expecting one of four basic reactions to this idea:
1) That's neat and novel,
2) That's what was already planned, it's the "obvious" way to do it,
3) We tried that, here's why it doesn't work,
4) It's stupid, and here's why,
I honestly don't
At 03:35 PM 9/21/00 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>At 03:26 PM 9/21/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
>> > > Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
>> > > to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
>> > >
&
At 03:26 PM 9/21/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > > Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
> > > to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
> > >
> > > @x = 3 * @y;
>I can see that allowing expressions on @x would require considerable
>chan
At 02:39 AM 9/21/00 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>Thanks, Paris, for your intervention, although I fear it was too late.
>
>Well, since Tom claims to have put me in his kill file, he may never see
>this. But for the record...
>
>Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> > >Can't we all just play nice?
> >
> >
At 07:29 AM 9/19/00 -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> I guess, if I had to write an explanation of pack/unpack based on
>my limited understanding, it would be something like:
>
> "Unpack takes binary data in some particular format and
>disassembles it, assigning various pieces of it to v
7 and RFC82 provide two different sets of functionality that
partially overlap.
Comments? Criticism? Complaints?
Later,
Buddha
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the
At 08:13 AM 9/15/00 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>Piers wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of tempted to look at adding another pragma to go with 'use
>> base' along the lines of:
>>
>> use implements 'Interface';
>>
>> Which is almost entirely like C but with
>> 'Interface' cons
Therefore, expand to
include the RHS as well, which puts us in void context, then transform
to:
for $i (0..$#a[0]) {
for $j (0..$#a[1]) {
$a[[$i,$j]] = rand();
}
}
I'm not sure what to do in list lvalue context. Are there any contexts
untouched (void lvalue?!?)?
And ho
Sorry, the mailer did something unexpected...
At 12:00 AM 9/12/00 +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Reading through the examples left me wondering about some
>> technicalities:
>>
>> > @t[|i;|j] = @a[|j;|i]; # transpose 2-d @a
>>
>> Written like this it would requ
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
