Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >But I counter that arguability by saying that you really shouldn't be
> >putting one() in type signatures. If you want something to be an A or a
> >B, and you're not doing any checking later on in the code, then it's
> >fine if it's both A and B.
Luke Palmer wrote:
But I counter that arguability by saying that you really shouldn't be
putting one() in type signatures. If you want something to be an A or a
B, and you're not doing any checking later on in the code, then it's
fine if it's both A and B. If you are doing checking later on, then
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> HaloO Luke,
>
> you wrote:
> >if $a \ $b == 3 {...}
> > *If A nor B is 3 ...
>
> What does the * in front of the if mean? Not?
"Ungrammatical"
> With "grammar reason" I meant the formal grammar of Perl6 not the one
> of natural english. Are you aware of such rea
HaloO Luke,
you wrote:
if $a \ $b == 3 {...}
*If A nor B is 3 ...
What does the * in front of the if mean? Not?
With "grammar reason" I meant the formal grammar of Perl6
not the one of natural english. Are you aware of such reasons?
In English it's more like:
if \ $a \ $b == 3 {
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >That's quite nice, but I've been kind of wanting to go the other way.
> >You know, not every operation in Perl 6 needs to have a punctuation
> >operator.
> >
> >I think we should not use \, and also get rid of ^. I'm interested in
> >seeing an examp
Luke Palmer wrote:
That's quite nice, but I've been kind of wanting to go the other way.
You know, not every operation in Perl 6 needs to have a punctuation
operator.
I think we should not use \, and also get rid of ^. I'm interested in
seeing an example where using ^ is readable enough over on
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 07:45:33PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaï wrote:
> Autrijus Tang wrote:
> >as well as the non-short-circuitting "!!" logical operator, and the
> >lower-precedenced "nor".
>
> I'm not sure if '!' fits the heavy weight perl6 grammar. But why is
> 'nor' not short-circuitting? It only c
Autrijus Tang wrote:
as well as the non-short-circuitting "!!" logical operator, and the
lower-precedenced "nor".
I'm not sure if '!' fits the heavy weight perl6 grammar. But why is
'nor' not short-circuitting? It only continues when the left side is
true --- like '||' and '//'. At least this is wh
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> This gives:
>
> my @x = (1,2,3);
>
> my $x = [1,2,3];
> my $x = ref (1,2,3); # also without ()?
> my $x = \* (1,2,3); # also without ()?
>
> Accepting the above completes the junction constructing operators:
>
> my $x = 1|2|3; # any
> my $x = 1^2^3; #
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:48:29PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaï wrote:
> Accepting the above completes the junction constructing operators:
>
> my $x = 1|2|3; # any
> my $x = 1^2^3; # one
> my $x = 1&2&3; # all
> my $x = 1\2\3; # none
Pugs currently implements binary infix "!" as the
Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
my $x = 1|2|3; # any
my $x = 1^2^3; # one
my $x = 1&2&3; # all
my $x = 1\2\3; # none
[...]
if $a && $b { ... } # and
if $a || $b { ... } # or
if $a ^^ $b { ... } # xor
if $a // $b { ... } # err
if $a \\ $b { ... } # nor
Well?
that's all very Huffy (sho
HaloO All,
it just occured to me that the lone single character reference
operator '\' is badly Huffman coded! These days references are
pretty much automagical. So my idea is to replace '\' with e.g.
'\*' which puts it in opposition to the flattening '*' and '**'
operators. And there should be a l
12 matches
Mail list logo
