> Strange. I think parameters to subroutines are in list
> context unless stated otherwise.
>
> -Scott
I agree. Do we miss something ?
Murat
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:16:50AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
>> > I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
>> > interesting observations on language design. Take a l
On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 10:10 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# 1 .. $a
# 1 .. $a : 2
# $a .. $b
# $a .. $b : 2
# $a .. $b : $c
# 1 .. 10 : $c
# 2.5 .. 10.0 : 0.5
To my knowledge, these are all fine.
Thanks, you're right. I was confusing the 'lazy' discussion with
--- Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suggest that we might require a special property to say "dispatch
> on return value", which would give us a place to put in some
> information to resolve conflicts.
In keeping with the notion of "a language for good programmers," I
think that the ver
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 01:00:26PM -0500, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> > The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
> > Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
> > fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda -> fn). It
> > would be easy to
> The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
> Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
> fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda -> fn). It
> would be easy to simply rename car/cdr to first/rest, but that loses
> the huffman natu
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> There's also the fun of:
>
> Dog bar(int);
> Cat bar(int);
>
> and
>
> xyzzy(Dog);
> xyzzy(Cat);
>
> with the call of:
>
> xyzzy(bar(1));
>
> Just one of the many brain-benders that I'm glad Larry has to deal
> with, not me. (Though this may be one
Garrett Goebel:
# From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
# > Actually, I was thinking C, though a junction of all
# > the possible contexts might be good too. Remember, want()
# > is more than just scalar/array now.
#
# sure, sure...
#
# I was ambiguously referring back to Dan's example, we
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Garrett Goebel:
> # Brent Dax wrote:
> # >
> # > This is also a problem with using want().
> # >
> # > If we don't provide wants_scalar/wants_list, someone will
> # > build it with want(), so we might as well try to address
> # > it. I suggest that wan
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:15:48AM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> Dan Sugalski:
> # Okay, I think I remembered the problem. Assume the following:
> #
> # list bar(int); # bar takes an int, returns a list
> # scalar bar(int); # bar takes an int, returns a scalar
> #
> # and also assume the f
At 10:02 AM -0800 1/24/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
>In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code
as
>possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch
mechanism
>would
Garrett Goebel:
# Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > This is also a problem with using want().
# >
# > If we don't provide wants_scalar/wants_list, someone will
# > build it with want(), so we might as well try to address
# > it. I suggest that want() return a special value when
# > the calling context is
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Okay, I think I remembered the problem. Assume the following:
>
> list bar(int); # bar takes an int, returns a list
> scalar bar(int); # bar takes an int, returns a scalar
>
> and also assume the following:
>
> xyzzy(scalar); # xyz
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:16:50AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> > I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
> > interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
> > feeling adventurous...
>
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:02:13AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > >In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code
> > as
> > >possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multid
Dan Sugalski:
# At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
# >In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from
# my code as
# >possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch
# mechanism
# >would allow one to write:
#
# Okay, I think I remembered the problem. Assume
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code
> as
> >possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch
> mechanism
> >would allow one to write:
>
> Okay, I think I reme
Michael Lazzaro:
# On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
# > I suspect that the prototype for '..' is like this:
#
# So the 'step' use of colon may _only_ be used in conjunction with a
# "ranged" list, e.g. C<..>, correct? In _any_ other context, it means
# something els
At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code as
possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch mechanism
would allow one to write:
Okay, I think I remembered the problem. Assume the following:
list bar(int);
On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 02:24 PM, Brent Dax wrote:
I suspect that the prototype for '..' is like this:
So the 'step' use of colon may _only_ be used in conjunction with a
"ranged" list, e.g. C<..>, correct? In _any_ other context, it means
something else.
In looking at A3, I also
--- Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code
> as
> possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch
> mechanism
> would allow one to write:
>
>sub gmttime ( $time = time() ) is in_scalar_context {
> strfti
21 matches
Mail list logo
