On Tuesday 07 June 2005 08:08, Larry Wall wrote:
> Okay, I've made up my mind. The "err" option is not tenable
> because it can cloak real exceptions, and having multiple
> versions of reduce is simply multiplying entities without
> adding much power. So let's allow an optional "identvalue"
> tra
On Wednesday 01 June 2005 17:18, Deborah Pickett wrote:
> You haven't convinced me, but rather than flog a dead horse,
> I'll just suggest that we both reserve the right to say "I
> told you so" when there are several years' worth of Perl 6
> code out there, and we see how common our respective exa
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:04:30PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:29:33PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > There will certainly be an event manager for all sorts of events floating
: > around in Perl 6. The main trick will be to hide this from the people
: > who aren't intereste
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:51:34PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Yeah, that's pretty. But that will bite people who don't understand
: continuations; it will bite people who don't understand "return"; it
: will even bite people who understand continuations, because they can
: be made in such an awkw
On 6/8/05, Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words, it outputs:
> >
> >Foo
> >Foo
> ># dies
Yep. My mistake.
> If that works, then I think it means we can write:
>
> sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
> my $cc = -> $retval { return $retva
"TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> [..] then I think it means we can write:
>> sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
>> my $cc = -> $retval { return $retval }
>
> For the records: the return here is the essential ingredient, right?
>
The Perl 6 summary for the week ending 2005-06-07
Crumbs. I've remembered to write the summary this week. Now if I can
just remember to bill O'Reilly for, err, 2003's summaries. Heck, it's
not like waiting for the dollar to get stronger has paid off.
Ah well, no use crying over spi
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:29:33PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> There will certainly be an event manager for all sorts of events floating
> around in Perl 6. The main trick will be to hide this from the people
> who aren't interested. The other trick will be to actually spec it,
> since up till now
Adam Kennedy skribis 2005-06-08 15:57 (+1000):
> The number of events I'm talking about would be extremely low, pre and
> post fork being one.
I think they're much more useful being two.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://con
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:57:14PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
: What I'd like to see for Perl 6 (and I'm not sure if this exists
: already), is some sort of minimal event manager.
There will certainly be an event manager for all sorts of events floating
around in Perl 6. The main trick will be t
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:21:38PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: A06 and S06 are in disagreement about the "caller" builtin, and I need
: help understanding either one.
:
: A06 [plus updates] stipulates this signature for caller:
:
: multi *caller (?$where = &?CALLER::SUB, Int +$skip = 0, Str +$labe
With my occasionally-stated preference for keeping the Perl 6 core
slimmer than it already is, I feel a little silly about suggesting new
features for P6, but I'd like to stimulate debate on one that I'd like
to see.
Last year I was having some issues with a large web application that
needed
On Sun, Jun 05, 2005 at 10:22:16PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: two quick questions:
:
:
: Are multi submethods allowed?
Presumably.
: my $x = undef;
: my $y = $x.some_method;
: # $y now contains an unthrown exception object, saying that undef
: # doesn't .can("some_method
A06 and S06 are in disagreement about the "caller" builtin, and I need
help understanding either one.
A06 [plus updates] stipulates this signature for caller:
multi *caller (?$where = &?CALLER::SUB, Int +$skip = 0, Str +$label)
returns CallerContext { ... }
In S06 it's (I infer):
multi *cal
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:52:55PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Okay, I was referring more to the implementation. How do we tell apart:
:
: 3 < 4 <= 5 == 5
:
: From
:
: 3 lt 4 >= 5 != 5
:
: ?
As long as the actual arguments aren't allowed to be lazy/thunky/iteratey,
they can just be ev
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 11:40:49AM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: >So, to clarify again, if $var is undefined, then the assignment:
: >
: >$var op= $value;
: >
: >is equivalent to:
: >
: >$var = (&op.does(identval) ?? &op.identval() :: undef) op $value;
: >
:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:37:22PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: BTW, is -> on the 'symbolic unary' precedence level
: as its read-only companion \ ?.
No, -> introduces a term that happens to consist of a formal signature
and a block. There are no ordinary expressions involved until you
Piers Cawley wrote:
[..] then I think it means we can write:
sub call-with-current-continuation(Code $code) {
my $cc = -> $retval { return $retval }
For the records: the return here is the essential ingredient, right?
Without it the block would be evaluated or optimized away to an
Piers Cawley wrote:
"TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff -> does not create a Sub
but a Block instance then Luke's code
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Piers Cawley wrote:
>>> My preference is for:
>>> Boo
>>> Boo
>>> Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
>>
>> How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff -> does not create
"TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> My preference is for:
>> Boo
>> Boo
>> Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
>
> How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff -> does not create a Sub
> but a Block instance then Luke's code can b
Piers Cawley wrote:
My preference is for:
Boo
Boo
Can't dereferene literal numeric literal 42 as a coderef.
How do you reach the second 'Boo'? Iff -> does not create a Sub
but a Block instance then Luke's code can be interpreted as a
much smarter version of
sub foo()
{
Well,
does using -> as blockref creator also give anonymous scalars?
$y = -> $x { $x = 3; $x }; # $y:(Ref of Block of Int)
BTW, is -> on the 'symbolic unary' precedence level
as its read-only companion \ ?. Are they pure macros?
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/7/05, Matt Fowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 6/7/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sub foo (Code $code) {
>> > my $return_to_caller = -> $ret { return $ret };
>> >
>> > $code($return_to_caller);
>> >
Damian Conway wrote:
So, to clarify again, if $var is undefined, then the assignment:
$var op= $value;
is equivalent to:
$var = (&op.does(identval) ?? &op.identval() :: undef) op $value;
Correct?
Might I add that it should read
$var = (&op.does(identval) ??
&op.
Luke Palmer wrote:
Says not:
Boo
Boo
Boo
...
This is clear, but I would expect the output
Boo
42
because the return value of foo is a ref to a block that
makes the caller return 42. This is written in my current
Perl6 as
&foo:( : --> Block --> 42)
The question is when exa
Larry wrote:
Okay, I've made up my mind. The "err" option is not tenable because
it can cloak real exceptions, and having multiple versions of reduce is
simply multiplying entities without adding much power. So let's allow
an optional "identvalue" trait on operators. If it's there, reduce
can
27 matches
Mail list logo
