On 11/23/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, we're attaching the whole lazy/nonlazy mess to the
> list/scalar distincion, which I think is a really good default.
> We use ** and lazy() to violate those defaults.
I think you might be mixing up the "scope" of laziness here. Havin
On 11/23/05, Flavio S. Glock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about allowing reduce() to return a scalar with the same laziness
> as the list:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a lazy string if @list is lazy
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a lazy number if @list is lazy
>
> It would look like:
>
> $foo = s
2005/11/23, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I think the last one is more feasible than the middle one, at least
> by default. The problem is that stringification is considered a result
> of a kind of scalar context, and ordinary scalar context is not lazy
> in Perl 6. So we'd probably need to
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:35:09PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-23 11:16 (-0800):
: > Range objects are supposed to *be* iterators, but pugs isn't there yet,
: > last I checked.
:
: Is the associated sigil @ or $? Either way, there's a problem.
No, either way it does what you
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:24:11PM -0200, Flavio S. Glock wrote:
: Ah, ok - but I believe that say() is slurpy, which means the list must
: be instantiated first.
It's * instantiated, but not ** instantiated, so the iterators buried
in the .specs of the list aren't forced to evaluate yet. And ran
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-23 11:16 (-0800):
> Range objects are supposed to *be* iterators, but pugs isn't there yet,
> last I checked.
Is the associated sigil @ or $? Either way, there's a problem. $foo
can't flatten in list context, which .. does want, which would be
inconsistent, but with @, i
Juerd:
2005/11/23, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Flavio S. Glock skribis 2005-11-23 10:13 (-0200):
> > Can we have:
> > say 1..Inf;
>
> It's important, I think, to note that this isn't item context, but list
> context. Str list context, but still list context. Which means 1..Inf
> isn't stringifi
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:07:08PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: On 11/23/05, Flavio S. Glock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > OTOH, it would be nice if
: >
: > say substr( ~(1..Inf), 0, 10 )
: >
: > printed "1 2 3 4 5".
: This would work, I think, if ranges were convertable to iterators,
Range obje
Flavio S. Glock skribis 2005-11-23 10:13 (-0200):
> Can we have:
> say 1..Inf;
It's important, I think, to note that this isn't item context, but list
context. Str list context, but still list context. Which means 1..Inf
isn't stringified as a whole. &say will have an array that represents
the l
On 11/23/05, Flavio S. Glock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can we have:
>
> say 1..Inf;
>
> to output an infinite stream, instead of just looping forever?
>
> OTOH, it would be nice if
>
> say substr( ~(1..Inf), 0, 10 )
>
> printed "1 2 3 4 5".
>
> Flattened lists would still loop forever (or fa
Can we have:
say 1..Inf;
to output an infinite stream, instead of just looping forever?
OTOH, it would be nice if
say substr( ~(1..Inf), 0, 10 )
printed "1 2 3 4 5".
Flattened lists would still loop forever (or fail):
say **(1..Inf);
$s = substr( ~( **(1..Inf) ), 0, 10 );
- Flavio
11 matches
Mail list logo
