On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
What is the utility of the perl5 behavior:
\($a,$b,$c)
meaning
(\$a, \$b, \$c)
Do people really do that? ... Can someone give an example of an actual,
proper, use?
Yes, I've used it like this:
for (\($a,$b,$c)) {
$$_++;
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of literals and scalars.
An Iarray is a
--
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:03:41
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 04:56 PM, Deborah Ariel Pickett
wrote:
But is it OK for a list to be silently promoted to an array when used
as an array? So that all of the following would work, and not just
50%
of them?
(1..10).map {...}
[1..10].map {...}
And somehow related to
On 2003-02-11 at 16:52:36, Dave Whipp wrote:
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 2003-02-11 at 17:44:08, Mark J. Reed wrote:
pop @{[@a,@b,@c]}
It creates an anonymous array, then removes the last element,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2003-02-11 at 17:12:52, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
(@a,@b,@c).pop
This doesn't make any sense, since pop modifies the pop-ee.
What do you expect should happen here?
[@a,@b,@c].pop
Same as above.
Except that the Perl5 equivalent, ugly as the
On 2003-02-12 at 11:07:45, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Meaning that I think this should be possible, but I'm not
sure if that syntax is correct, because it would mean that
the arrayrefs would need to be their own class to allow
a method to be called on it.
No, they wouldn't, unless I'm missing
--
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:28:23
Luke Palmer wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:34:57 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of literals and scalars.
An Iarray is a variable that holds a list.
is the Rvalue-assign list, which takes the form of:
($r1, $r2,
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of literals and scalars.
An Iarray is a variable that holds a list.
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of
Here are some of the answers from my own notes. These behaviors have
all been confirmed on-list by the design team:
An @array in list context returns a list of its elements
An @array in scalar context returns a reference to itself (NOTE1)
An @array in numeric (scalar) context returns
On 2003-02-11 at 17:12:52, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
(@a,@b,@c).pop
This doesn't make any sense, since pop modifies the pop-ee.
What do you expect should happen here?
[@a,@b,@c].pop
Same as above.
Except that the Perl5 equivalent, ugly as the syntax may be, works fine:
On 2003-02-11 at 17:44:08, Mark J. Reed wrote:
pop @{[@a,@b,@c]}
It creates an anonymous array, then removes the last element, leaving two
elements in the array - which is irrelevant since the array is
then discarded completely.
Minor correction: we don't know how many elements
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are variables.
- Lists are values.
My hesitation about the 'arrays are variables' part is that Damian
corrected me on a similar thing when I was
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 06:26 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
(Just going off on a tangent: Is it true that an array slice such as
@array[4..8]
is syntactically equivalent to this list
(@array[4], @array[5], @array[6], @array[7], @array[8])
? Are array
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Just to clarify... in P6, is this an array reference, or a list
reference?
[1,2,3]
Exactly. It's still up in the air...
Apoc 2, RFC 175:
So it works out that the explicit list composer:
[1,2,3]
is syntactic sugar for
[Recipients trimmed back to just p6-language; the Cc: list was getting
a bit large.]
On 2003-02-11 at 12:56:45, Garrett Goebel wrote:
I'd just stick with Uri's explanation. Arrays are allocated. Lists are
on the stack...
Nuh-uh. Those are implementation details, not part of the language
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:34:57 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are variables.
- Lists are values.
My hesitation about the
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
What about this?
\@array
hmm. As perl Apoc2, Lists, RFC 175... arrays and hashes return a
reference
to themselves in scalar context... I'm not sure what context '\' puts
them
in.
I'd guess \@array is a reference to an
Michael == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Do people really do that? I must say, given that it looks *so
Michael obviously* like it instead means [$a,$b,$c], I wonder if attempting to
Michael take a reference to a list should be a compile-time error.
Michael Note that this is
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are variables.
- Lists are values.
My hesitation about the 'arrays are variables' part is that Damian
corrected me on a
JFR == Joseph F Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(@a,@b,@c).pop
JFR This doesn't make any sense, since pop modifies the pop-ee.
JFR What do you expect should happen here?
[@a,@b,@c].pop
JFR Same as above.
there is a subtle distinction in those two. the first should be a syntax
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 2003-02-11 at 17:44:08, Mark J. Reed wrote:
pop @{[@a,@b,@c]}
It creates an anonymous array, then removes the last element, leaving
two
elements in the array - which is irrelevant
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
What is the utility of the perl5 behavior:
\($a,$b,$c)
meaning
(\$a, \$b, \$c)
Do people really do that? I must say, given that it looks *so
obviously* like it instead means
Dave Whipp:
# Minor correction: we don't know how many elements are left in the
# array - it depends on how many elements were in @a, @b, and @c to
# start with. One less than that. :)
#
# These days you need the splat operator to flatten lists: so
My understanding was that arrays would
But is it OK for a list to be silently promoted to an array when used
as an array? So that all of the following would work, and not just 50%
of them?
(1..10).map {...}
[1..10].map {...}
And somehow related to all this . . .
Let's assume for the moment that there's still a
Uri Guttman wrote:
arrays are allocated and lists are on the stack. so arrays
can have references to them but lists can't.
Apoc 2, RFC 175:
scalar(list(1,2,3));
[...]
scalar(array(1,2,3));
Which would imply one could take a reference to either.
can anyone see any changes in perl6
While I like the glib Arrays are variables that hold lists explanation
that worked so well in Perl5, I think that Perl6 is introducing some
changes to this that make this less true.
Like what?
Well, like the builtin switch statement, which was what I was trying to
show in my bad example
From: Deborah Ariel Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:15:13 +1100 (EST)
In Perl6, where there seems to be even more of a blur between
compile-time and runtime, I don't think it's always going to be possible
(i.e., easy) to know where naming an array or providing an actual
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
While I like the glib Arrays are variables that hold lists explanation
that worked so well in Perl5, I think that Perl6 is introducing some
changes to this that make this less true.
Like what?
Well, like the builtin switch statement, which was what I was
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
be helpful.
While I like the glib Arrays are variables that hold lists explanation
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
be helpful.
While I like the glib Arrays are
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can
be as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
temporary). lists can't
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
usable two-sentence definition is:
-- A list is an ordered set of scalar values.
quibble: that's an ordered bag, isn't it? ;)
--
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice
from
that pair of defintions.
Is there any syntactic reason why both of the following cannot be
allowed?
(1,2,3).pop
[1,2,3].pop
I don't know that one is
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice
from
that pair of defintions.
ML Is there any syntactic reason why both of the following cannot be
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
be helpful.
MikeL
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in
Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it
would be helpful.
How's this?
On 2003-02-07 at 11:13:07, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in
Perl6?
How's this?
A list is a literal (e.g.,
On 2003-02-07 at 14:26:42, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Not really, though. A list can be an lvalue, provided it is a list
of lvalues:
($a, $b, $c) = 1,2,3;
Forgot the parens on the right side, there:
($a, $b, $c) = (1,2,3);
But they certainly aren't lvalues:
[$a,$b,$c]
--- Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-02-07 at 11:13:07, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer
the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in
Perl6?
How's
On 2003-02-07 at 12:18:21, Austin Hastings wrote:
Although this may reasonably be regarded as a special case; you
certainly can't pop a list:
(1,2,3).pop = error
But could you do it the other way (function instead of method)?
pop (1,2,3) = ?
Nope. At least, not in Perl
MJR == Mark J Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJR A reference is fundamentally a pointer, but that doesn't help. My point
MJR was that if you're talking about lists vs. arrays, you have at least
MJR three different syntaxes to distinguish:
MJR (1,2,3)
MJR @arrayName
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can be
as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
temporary). lists can't live beyond the current expression but arrays
can.
Along those
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:38:36PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
ML usable two-sentence definition is:
ML -- A list is an ordered set of scalar values.
ML -- An array is
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:46:37 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can be
as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML \(1,2,3)
ML returns an array reference...
in perl5 it returns a list of refs ( \1, \2, \3 ). i dunno the perl6
semantics. it could be the same as [ 1, 2, 3 ] which means it is not a
Sorry, I was misremembering a
AT == Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AT On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:38:36PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
ML usable two-sentence definition is:
ML -- A list is
49 matches
Mail list logo
