Re: reduce metaoperator on an empty list

On 6/6/05, Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Roger Hale wrote: > > This is why I would rather the o -> [o] circumfixion left [o] an infix, > > not prefix operator. I would rather be explicit about my identity: > > $product = 1 [*] @array; > > Hmm. Not all operators *have* an identity.

Re: reduce metaoperator on an empty list

HaloO Roger, I'm answering here to your other mail as well. In my example I was intensionally changing from last to first and positive and negative numbers! This is a sublety of distance preserving, direction aware counting in multiples of arbitrary unity---or some such ;) you wrote: This is why

Re: reduce metaoperator on an empty list

Damian Conway wrote: What you want is: $product = ([*] @values err 0); Or: $factorial = ([*] 1..$n err 1); The "err" operator bind only to the point on the instruction it is attached to, ie it's not a shortcut for eval(), right? I'm just seeing some edge cases here for custom defined o

Re: reduce metaoperator on an empty list

Roger Hale wrote: This is why I would rather the o -> [o] circumfixion left [o] an infix, not prefix operator. I would rather be explicit about my identity: $product = 1 [*] @array; Hmm. Not all operators *have* an identity. You'd have to write, in that case; @array[0] [ƒ] @[EMAI

Re: What the heck is... wrong with Parrot development?

> "SV" == Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: SV> Please honour his decision to bow out gracefully without turning it into SV> a childish battle of egos. SV> In the meantime let us celebrate 5 years of Dan Sugalski's contribution SV> to the Parrot and Perl 6 project. SV> Three

Re: What the heck is... wrong with Parrot development?

Fagyal Csongor wrote: With all respect, I think this is a very important thing which needs attention, and I hope that you will help us to clarify the situation. I am pretty sure Dan did not leave because he had a bad day - we know he Dan's position was very stressful, he had people from all s

Re: What the heck is... wrong with Parrot development?

Larry, On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:31:01PM +0200, anonymous coward wrote: : It's a funny old world... : wrote Dan Sugalski on June 04, 2005 in his Squawks of the Parrot blog. : Go and see: . : : Hence the subject. : : What the heck is wrong w

Re: What the heck is... wrong with Parrot development?

On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:31:01PM +0200, anonymous coward wrote: : It's a funny old world... : wrote Dan Sugalski on June 04, 2005 in his Squawks of the Parrot blog. : Go and see: . : : Hence the subject. : : What the heck is wrong with Parrot

What the heck is... wrong with Parrot development?

It's a funny old world... wrote Dan Sugalski on June 04, 2005 in his Squawks of the Parrot blog. Go and see: . Hence the subject. What the heck is wrong with Parrot development? anonymous coward __

Re: reduce metaoperator on an empty list

Damian Conway wrote: Deborah Pickett wrote: You are going to see empty lists more often than you think in expressions like $product = [*] @array; and having to write that as $product = [*] 1, @array; just to protect against a common case doesn't exactly flaunt Perl's DWIMmery to me. I *h

Re: mod/div

Just a nit, for the record, with no great perl relevance: "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote: But what is the first quarter of year 0? 0.25? Sure (of course if there were a year 0 instead of becoming 1 BCE) > And the last quarter of year -1? -0.25? Sure > That works numerically, but March of a year

Re: (multi)subroutine names

Rod Adams wrote: It used to be &foo &foo And has become &foo:(Array,Int) &foo:(Hash,Int) The return type arrow --> inside the :() type spec is not yet approved by @Larry. In my mind, the more interesting question is what does &foo without the <> specifiers return when foo is mul