On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 04:42:27PM -0400, Parrot Raiser wrote:
> On 9/16/15, David H. Adler wrote:
>
> > So, how about this
> >
> > perl6 -e 'sub a {state @x; @x.push(++$)}; say a for 1..6;'
> >
> > [1]
> > [1 2]
> > &c
>
> Even better, but how about 'for a..f'? That makes it clear that the
> li
On 9/16/15, David H. Adler wrote:
> So, how about this
>
> perl6 -e 'sub a {state @x; @x.push(++$)}; say a for 1..6;'
>
> [1]
> [1 2]
> &c
Even better, but how about 'for a..f'? That makes it clear that the
list values are being used, not some sort of subscript. (The less
ambiguity possible in a
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:28:59AM -0500, andy_b...@wiwb.uscourts.gov wrote:
> [1 1 1 1]
> next
> [1 1 1 1 1 1]
> next
> [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
>
> vs
>
> [1 2 3]
> next
> [1 2 3 3]
> next
> [1 2 3 3 3]
>
> I think the latter is clearer, though perhaps the problem is the original
> code is a bit ove
[1 1 1 1]
next
[1 1 1 1 1 1]
next
[1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1]
vs
[1 2 3]
next
[1 2 3 3]
next
[1 2 3 3 3]
I think the latter is clearer, though perhaps the problem is the original
code is a bit overly-contrived (I'm thinking ;-). It shows better the
variation after each call, maybe. my 2.00e-02 dolla
The combination of different numbers on separate lines looks clearest to me.
On 9/14/15, yary wrote:
> Keep it on separate lines, I don't know how that formatting got lost (it's
> showing up as separate lines in my history).
>
> As for the rest of it, curious as to consensus.
>
> -y
>
> On Mon, S
Keep it on separate lines, I don't know how that formatting got lost (it's
showing up as separate lines in my history).
As for the rest of it, curious as to consensus.
-y
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:06 PM, David H. Adler wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:13:21PM -0400, yary wrote:
> > Using d
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 03:13:21PM -0400, yary wrote:
> Using different numbers for the examples helps visualize what's
> initialized vs added later:
...
> *[1 2 3]next[1 2 3 3]next[1 2 3 3 3]*
I don't know. I think, by having it on separate lines, and watching the
row of '1's extend, is less vi
Using different numbers for the examples helps visualize what's
initialized vs added later:
sub a {
*state @x = 1, 2;@x.push(3)*}
=end code
will continue to append each time it is called. So,
=begin code
say a;
say "next";
say a;
say "next";
say a;
=end code
will output
=begin co
Maybe a bit long, but think it explains it in a way people will
understand. Thoughts?
https://gist.github.com/dha/8009c28d7bf2d1ca8875
dha
--
David H. Adler - - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
I think the scale of relative badness is broken in this place.
- Diablo
