Jon Lang wrote:
I believe that we already have a signature creation operator, namely
":( @paramlist )".
Yes, sorry, I missed that.
> ...
Regardless, the magic that makes this work would be the ability to
assign a flat list of values to a signature. Is this wise?
We already have the abilit
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>> Hmm... I think that takes the discussion to another level, and the
>> question is:
>>
>> "what does a capture returns when coerced to a context it doesn't
>> provide a value for?"
>
> I'd like to take one step further, and ask what it is that introduced
>
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
Hmm... I think that takes the discussion to another level, and the
question is:
"what does a capture returns when coerced to a context it doesn't
provide a value for?"
I'd like to take one step further, and ask what it is that introduced
capture semantics in the first pl
TSa wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> item($x) # Dwimmey use of item context.
>
> IIRC this is the same as $$x, right? Or does that
> extract the invocant slot without dwimmery?
Umm... good question. This is a rather nasty paradox: on the one
hand, we want to be able to stack $, @, and % with capture
On Tuesday, 6. January 2009 22:01:36 Jon Lang wrote:
> item($x) # Dwimmey use of item context.
IIRC this is the same as $$x, right? Or does that
extract the invocant slot without dwimmery?
> list($x) # Dwimmey use of list context.
> hash($x) # Dwimmey use of hash context.
> $x._ # the Cap
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Hmm... I think that takes the discussion to another level, and the
> question is:
>
> "what does a capture returns when coerced to a context it doesn't
> provide a value for?"
>
> The easy answer would be undef, empty array and empty hash, but that
> doesn't DWIM at all.
>
>
Em Ter, 2009-01-06 às 11:28 -0800, Jon Lang escreveu:
> Of course, that's only a third of the problem. What should people
> expect with each of these:
Hmm... I think that takes the discussion to another level, and the
question is:
"what does a capture returns when coerced to a context it doesn'
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> I've just realized we were missing some spots, so remaking the list of
> possibilities
>
> my $a = sub s1 { return a => 1 }
> my $b = sub s2 { return a => 1, b => 2 }
> my $c = sub s3 { return 1, 2, 3, a => 1, b => 2 }
> my $d = sub s4 { return 1 }
> my $e = sub s5 { retu
Em Seg, 2009-01-05 às 20:32 +0100, Moritz Lenz escreveu:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > would force item context in the capture, and here is the problem, as a
> > capture in item context was supposed to return the invocant.
> Maybe we could have a different rule for captures in scalar contexts
> that do
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As smop and mildew now support ControlExceptionReturn (see
> v6/mildew/t/return_function.t), an important question raised:
>
> sub plural { return 1,2 }
> sub singular { return 1 }
> my @a = plural();
> my $b = plural();
> my @c = singular();
> my $d = singular
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As smop and mildew now support ControlExceptionReturn (see
> v6/mildew/t/return_function.t), an important question raised:
>
> sub plural { return 1,2 }
> sub singular { return 1 }
> my @a = plural();
> my $b = plural();
> my @c = singular();
> my $d = singular
Hi,
As smop and mildew now support ControlExceptionReturn (see
v6/mildew/t/return_function.t), an important question raised:
sub plural { return 1,2 }
sub singular { return 1 }
my @a = plural();
my $b = plural();
my @c = singular();
my $d = singular();
What should @a, $b, @c and $d contain
12 matches
Mail list logo
