Re: statement_control()

2005-12-01 Thread Michele Dondi
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Piers Cawley wrote: $fh = open '>>', 'quotefile' or fail; $fh.print <<'EOQ' Hmmm... 1/sqrt(2) * ( |Perl5> + |Perl6> ) ? ;-) (I thought '>>' & C. were gone...) Michele -- We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done. - Alan T

Re: statement_control()

2005-11-30 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:36:22PM +, Piers Cawley wrote: : $fh = open '>>', 'quotefile' or fail; : $fh.print <<'EOQ' : I like witty sayings as much as the next guy, but wit can hurt when : misdirected. If people want me to be machine for cranking out quote : file fodder, I'll do my best. But

Re: statement_control()

2005-11-30 Thread Piers Cawley
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote: > : Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less > : entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like > : doing so to say that in all earnestnes

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-22 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:12:00AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote: : Oh, I'm not the person you were responding to, and probably the less : entitled one to speak in the name of everyone else here, but I feel like : doing so to say that in all earnestness I'm quite sure no one took any : offense out

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-22 Thread Michele Dondi
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote: I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to be far too clever, and not thinking about how it would come across. No, to be perfectly honest, it was more culpable th

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:43:21AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: : Let's see, where did I put my stash of generic quotes? I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to be far too clever, and not thinking about h

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 02:05:31PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote: : This is very close to a proposal I made to the ruby-dev mailing list : (which was Warnocked). I proposed a very basic engine that would work : with the parser/lexer to determine what action to take instead of : using the huge case statem

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Rob Kinyon
On 11/21/05, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > HaloO, > > Luke Palmer wrote: > > On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove > >>that runtim

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:45:56AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: : Another issue in "if" optimization is whether the blocks in fact do : anything blockish that have to be scoped to the block. This is a : determination that Perl 5 makes when it's compiling blocks. It's : basically an attribute that mig

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 03:51:19PM +, Luke Palmer wrote: : On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: : > Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove : > that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal : > opti

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread TSa
HaloO, Luke Palmer wrote: On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal optimized &statement_control:. Which it definitely

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Luke Palmer
On 11/21/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course, the compiler is free to optimize these things if it can prove > that runtime's &statement_control: is the same as the internal > optimized &statement_control:. Which it definitely can't witho

Re: statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-21 Thread Ingo Blechschmidt
Hi, Rob Kinyon wrote: > On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yep. Also note that "for" is not a special magical construct in Perl >> 6, it's a simple subroutine (&statement_control:, with the >> signature ([EMAIL PROTECTED

statement_control() (was Re: lvalue reverse and array views)

2005-11-20 Thread Rob Kinyon
On 11/20/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > Yep. Also note that "for" is not a special magical construct in Perl 6, > it's a simple subroutine (&statement_control:, with the signature > ([EMAIL PROTECTED], Code *&code)). (Of course, it