On Jan 18, 2006, at 1:18 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 12:35:57PM -0500, Mark Reed wrote:
On 2006-01-17 12:24 PM, Gaal Yahas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[split on empty string] doesn's seem to be specced yet.
I would prefer the current pugs behavior; it's consistent
On 2006-01-18 10:04 AM, David K Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just to show opposite, I've always found that behavior (i.e.
returning the original string unchanged) confusing. Csplit works
based on sequential examination of the target string to locate
matching substrings on which to split.
Mark Reed wrote:
Perl6 .split(/whatever/) is equivalent to split(/whatever/,) in Perl5.
I'm hoping that the perl 5 syntax will still be valid in perl 6.
--
Jonathan Dataweaver Lang
At 09:38 +0800 1/18/06, Audrey Tang wrote:
Also, would you be happy with different treatments of Int/Int versus
Num/Num?
0/0 # fail illegal division by zero
0.0/0.0 # NaN
I plead guilty. I was not aware that perl6 was going to allow types to be
defined like int and float.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:38:04AM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
: Also, would you be happy with different treatments of Int/Int versus
: Num/Num?
:
: 0/0 # fail illegal division by zero
: 0.0/0.0 # NaN
I'd like to point out that there's no reason in principle that a failure
undef
Today on #perl6, Audrey, Stevan and I were talking about $repr. A
tangent arose where Audrey said that the difference between class
methods and instance methods was simply whether or not the body
contained an attribute access.
Is this true? If it is, then I think it violates polymorphism as
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 07:24:14PM +0200, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: While cleaning up tests for release:
:
: .split(':')=
:
:()# Perl 5
:(,) # pugs
:
: Which is correct? It doesn's seem to be specced yet.
This has nothing to do with splitting on the empty
Jonathan Lang skribis 2006-01-18 7:26 (-0800):
Mark Reed wrote:
Perl6 .split(/whatever/) is equivalent to split(/whatever/,) in Perl5.
I'm hoping that the perl 5 syntax will still be valid in perl 6.
Don't worry, it is.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:08:07PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Jonathan Lang skribis 2006-01-18 7:26 (-0800):
: Mark Reed wrote:
: Perl6 .split(/whatever/) is equivalent to split(/whatever/,) in Perl5.
: I'm hoping that the perl 5 syntax will still be valid in perl 6.
:
: Don't worry, it is.
Yep,
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:56:53PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: Today on #perl6, Audrey, Stevan and I were talking about $repr. A
: tangent arose where Audrey said that the difference between class
: methods and instance methods was simply whether or not the body
: contained an attribute access.
:
Unless Matt takes pity on me, and writes a summary at disgustingly
high speed, there won't be a summary this week. Assorted things got in
the way on Monday or Tuesday, and I'm now at my consulting gig 'til
the end of the week with no time for summarizing.
I'm really, really sorry.
--
Piers
Larry~
On 1/18/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But I have a strong gut-feeling that over the long term it's going to
be important to be able to view a given object as either a partially
instantiated class or a partially undefined object, and for that we have
to break down the false
Hello All,
In reading over the Synopsis again in hopes of finding more
information regarding the different repr types (see the warnocked
post entitled Construction and Initialization of repr types other
than P6opaque), I stumbled onto some issues with the Perl 6 OO model
and bless.
In
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 14:13, Stevan Little wrote:
Do we really still need to retain the old Perl 5 version of bless?
What purpose does it serve that p6opaque does not do in a better/
faster/cleaner way?
Interoperability with Perl 5 code.
Now if you want to write a p6opaque - Perl 5
On 1/18/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:56:53PM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: Today on #perl6, Audrey, Stevan and I were talking about $repr. A
: tangent arose where Audrey said that the difference between class
: methods and instance methods was simply whether
On 1/18/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 14:13, Stevan Little wrote:
Do we really still need to retain the old Perl 5 version of bless?
What purpose does it serve that p6opaque does not do in a better/
faster/cleaner way?
Interoperability with Perl 5
Suppose I have code that looks like this:
my ($x, $y, $z) = (1, 2, 3);
say sorted backward if ++$x ++$y ++$z;
Will $z be incremented even though the chained comparison is known to be
false after ++$x and ++$y are compared?
Joe Gottman
On 1/18/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 14:13, Stevan Little wrote:
Do we really still need to retain the old Perl 5 version of bless?
What purpose does it serve that p6opaque does not do in a better/
faster/cleaner way?
Interoperability with Perl 5 code.
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 17:57, Rob Kinyon wrote:
Well, for one thing, you can't write OO code in P5.
I'll play your semantic game if you play my what-if game.
I have a fair bit of Perl 5 code. Ponie works. I want to migrate my Perl 5
code to Perl 6 slowly. Everything new is Perl 6
On 1/18/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 17:57, Rob Kinyon wrote:
Well, for one thing, you can't write OO code in P5.
I'll play your semantic game if you play my what-if game.
I have a fair bit of Perl 5 code. Ponie works. I want to migrate my Perl 5
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:11, Rob Kinyon wrote:
As for how that will be handled, I would think that it would be as follows:
- in Perl6, objects created in another language will be treated as
p6opaque (unless some other unbox is a more suitable $repr).
... and I specify this exactly
On 1/19/06, Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose I have code that looks like this:
my ($x, $y, $z) = (1, 2, 3);
say sorted backward if ++$x ++$y ++$z;
Will $z be incremented even though the chained comparison is known to be
false after ++$x and ++$y
On 1/18/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:11, Rob Kinyon wrote:
As for how that will be handled, I would think that it would be as follows:
- in Perl6, objects created in another language will be treated as
p6opaque (unless some other unbox is a
On 1/18/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) by default, your object is opaque
2) if you don't want this, you can always use bless()
For interoperability with Perl 5 classes, I don't want to use an opaque
object. Ergo, I want to use bless() (or something, but does that explain why
I
Excuse my ignorance of the finer points, but I thought the reason for
bless's continued existence was so that the same sort of brilliant OO
experimentation that Damian and others have done with pure Perl 5 can
continue to be done in pure Perl 6 without having to hack p6opaque?
Trey
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:39, Rob Kinyon wrote:
No, you want to specify the $repr in CREATE(). But, p6hash will still
not be the same as a ref to an HV. Frankly, I think you're better off
letting Parrot mediate things the same way it would mediate Ruby and
Perl6 or Perl5 and Python.
On 1/18/06, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 19:39, Rob Kinyon wrote:
No, you want to specify the $repr in CREATE(). But, p6hash will still
not be the same as a ref to an HV. Frankly, I think you're better off
letting Parrot mediate things the same way it
On 1/18/06, Trey Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excuse my ignorance of the finer points, but I thought the reason for
bless's continued existence was so that the same sort of brilliant OO
experimentation that Damian and others have done with pure Perl 5 can
continue to be done in pure Perl 6
On 1/18/06 11:06 PM, Rob Kinyon wrote:
Not to mention that 90% of the hacking done in Class:: and Object:: will
handled by the fact that Perl6 has actual OO syntax. (Look Ma, no hands!)
You won't need Class::MakeMethods because Perl6 will make your accessors for
you.
There's more to life than
On Jan 18, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
Excuse my ignorance of the finer points, but I thought the reason
for bless's continued existence was so that the same sort of
brilliant OO experimentation that Damian and others have done with
pure Perl 5 can continue to be done in pure
On Thursday 19 January 2006 04:25, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 1/19/06, Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suppose I have code that looks like this:
my ($x, $y, $z) = (1, 2, 3);
say sorted backward if ++$x ++$y ++$z;
Will $z be incremented even though the
31 matches
Mail list logo
