On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 01:46:30AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> > But for the time being I'm tied to an IV pole
>
> We got rid of those; they're PMC poles now.
>
> Get well soon,
Ditto!
Dave.
--
Little fly, thy summer's play my thoughtless hand has
ter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> But for the time being I'm tied to an IV pole
We got rid of those; they're PMC poles now.
Get well soon,
Simon
--
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:59:26AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: So, I must ask, what does this do:
:
: sub foo() {
: return my $self = {
: print "Block";
: return $self;
: }
: }
:
: my $block = foo;
: print "Main";
: $block();
: p
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
>>>
Austin Hastings wrote:
>>>
> But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide
> s
At 11:55 PM +0100 10/3/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
> But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide
> some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
Isn't this one of the
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
>
>> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
>> > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide
>> > some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
>>
>>
>> Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is
On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
> > But that imposes eval() pretty frequently. Better to provide
> > some lower-level hackish way to agglutinate Blocks.
>
>
> Isn't this one of the prime examples of why CPS is being use, it allows
> for Tail Recursion Optimizati
Austin Hastings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
To: Jeff Clites
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Block Returns
Jeff Clites writes:
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure someone will make it
> mean something. :)
I've been saying for some time now that .= should mean exactly what one would expect
it to mean, method call and assign the result, for code like
$str .= lc
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > eval($block) if defined $block;
>
> I prefer $block.compile.run to eval()
They're not quite equivalent -- I think eval's still wrapping a try/catch
around the call.
Simon Cozens writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
>
> Some nits:
>
> > macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ * }/) {
>
> Probably just
>macro atexit($code) is parsed(//) {
>
> > $block .= $code;
> $block _= $code;
$block
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
> macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ * }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(//) {
> $block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure som
Austin Hastings writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > But this is already supported, in its most powerful form:
> >
> > wrap &block: { call; other_stuff() }
>
> Hmm, no.
>
> That does a call, which presumes a return, which burns up
> w
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 10:23 PM
> To: Jeff Clites
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Block Returns
>
>
> Jeff Clites writes:
> > >Speaking t
Jeff Clites writes:
> >Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to
> >disentangle
> >itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be
> >able
> >to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do &block
> >.=
> >{ more_stuff(); }; is way up on m
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to
disentangle
itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be
able
to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do &block
.=
{ more_stuff(); }; is way up on my list...)
I've wanted to do that sort of
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > > So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
> > > but
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
but that inner closure is?
But how can the inner closure be called if not
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:39:20AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > So the question is: What happens when indexof isn't on the call chain,
> > but that inner closure is?
>
> But how can the inner closure be called if not via indexof?
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 04:15:06AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> And to clarify:
>
> sub indexof(Selector $which, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {
> for zip(@data, 0...) -> $_, $index {
> when $which { return $index }
> }
> }
>
> Which actually creates a closure (well, in th
Stefan Lidman writes:
> So, I must ask, what does this do:
>
> >sub foo() {
> >return my $self = {
> >print "Block";
> >return $self;
> >}
> >}
>
> >my $block = foo;
> # = sub {print "Block"; return $self;}
>
> A6:
> One obviou
So, I must ask, what does this do:
>sub foo() {
>return my $self = {
>print "Block";
>return $self;
>}
>}
>my $block = foo;
# = sub {print "Block"; return $self;}
A6:
One obvious difference is that the sub on closures is now op
22 matches
Mail list logo
