HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I think that Larry is referring to slightly larger and more expensive rockets
than regular fireworks: http://www.siam.org/siamnews/general/ariane.htm
I know. But where would we put Perl 6 onto a range of programming
languages parrallel to rockets ranging from
Jonathan Lang:
could we huffman-code do nothing clauses by
leaving out the appropriate argument?
while $x-- some_condition($x);
Heheh, I often code like that, and then silence the complaint by adding
the {}.
--
Grtz, Ruud
HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Well, I assume that the do-nothing sub is assigned into the variable, and
gets re-evaluated each time the variable is use. Which would mean that you'd
get a new (different) empty hash each time. Whereas an empty hash constructor
gives you a hash reference to keep.
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:43:23AM +0100, TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Well, I assume that the do-nothing sub is assigned into the variable, and
gets re-evaluated each time the variable is use. Which would mean that
you'd
get a new (different) empty hash each time. Whereas an
What sort of match object should this return, supposing that it didn't
infinite loop:
x ~~ / [ [ (x) ]* ]* /
Should $/[0][0] be x, or should $/[0][0][0] be x? If it's the
latter, then when do new top-level elements get added?
/
[
[
{ say +$/[0][] } # is this
Does .clone do deep or shallow copying of objects?
I'm going to argue for shallow. I know there's a obvious tendency to
say that we should go with deep, because it's useful sometimes.
However, I think that would be ignoring the amazing prevelance of the
shallow copy idioms in perl 5:
[
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-12-23 16:16 (+):
However, I think that would be ignoring the amazing prevelance of the
shallow copy idioms in perl 5:
[ @array ]
{ %hash }
It's a great idiom. Not much typing, easy on the eyes and easy to
understand.
There's little, if any, reason to use
HaloO Everybody,
here's a an idea from me about makeing range object a bit like
junctions. That is a range object has a $.min and $.max and the
following comparison behaviour:
str num
lt strictly inside -+
gt strictly outside --+ |
eq == exactly on boundary --+ | |
Ups,
I forgot to mention things like
+('a0',,'e3') == +( a0 a1 a2 a3,
b0 b1 b2 b3,
c0 c1 c2 c3,
d0 d1 d2 d3,
e0 e1 e2 e3 )
== +( 'a0','a1','a2','a3',
On 12/23/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-12-23 16:16 (+):
However, I think that would be ignoring the amazing prevelance of the
shallow copy idioms in perl 5:
[ @array ]
{ %hash }
It's a great idiom. Not much typing, easy on the eyes and easy to
TSa skribis 2005-12-23 17:33 (+0100):
lt strictly inside -+
gt strictly outside --+ |
eq == exactly on boundary --+ | |
| | | negation
ne != not on boundary --+ | |
le = inside or on boundary --+ |
ge = outside or on
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
That's an interesting idea. A deep reference.
I also instantaniously loved the idea to dinstinguish between
the types Hash and Ref of Hash. Or Array etc.
--
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-12-23 16:42 (+):
I'd want something that clones this, somewhere between shallow and deep.
.c should be deep, but .d shallow. Perhaps this can be determined
using some attribute, that for a referenced hash defaults to the
opposite of what it defaults to for a
On 12/23/05, TSa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HaloO Everybody,
here's a an idea from me about makeing range object a bit like
junctions. That is a range object has a $.min and $.max and the
following comparison behaviour:
str num
lt strictly inside -+
gt strictly outside
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 04:16:44PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
Does .clone do deep or shallow copying of objects?
I'm going to argue for shallow. I know there's a obvious tendency to
say that we should go with deep, because it's useful sometimes.
However, I think that would be ignoring the
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-12-23 17:18 (+):
Why not call the shallow copy .copy, and the deep copy .clone?
Because using (almost-)synonyms for different things leads to infinite
confusion.
List/Array is a good example.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:19:03PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: As a third possibility, could we huffman-code do nothing clauses by
: leaving out the appropriate argument? That is:
:
: while $x-- some_condition($x);
:
: or
:
: loop ( ; some_condition($x) ; $x--);
We could, except that
But in Perl 5 to navigate complex structures one needs ad-hoc
solutions. I wonder if something is planned in Perl 6 as a means to do
that through a syntactically convenient construct with ad-hoc-isms
pluggable in in the form of suitable hooks (e.g. .on_node( { code; ... }
), etc.) that would
Well, @Larry has been researching attribute grammars for a month or
two now, which are an efficient (programmer-wise, not necessarily
processor-wise) method for specifying computations over trees. The
only syntax we've seen is that of Language::AttributeGrammar and TGE,
whose roots come from
I think that deep copying is rare enough in practice that it should
be dehuffmanized to .deepcopy, perhaps with optional arguments saying
how deep. Simple shallow copy is .copy, whereas .clone is a .bless
variant that will copy based on the deep/shallow preferences of the
item being cloned. The
20 matches
Mail list logo
