Author: larry
Date: Mon Mar 27 19:28:57 2006
New Revision: 8457
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
s/undef/undefine/
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod(origina
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 02:54:05PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 14:35:52 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: > > I think that if C is the new C, then immediately after the
: > > C line, $x should hold w
Author: larry
Date: Mon Mar 27 15:45:03 2006
New Revision: 8454
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
Log:
Changed temp (and let) to not default to undefine() any more.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
==
---
Author: larry
Date: Mon Mar 27 15:40:15 2006
New Revision: 8453
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S10.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S13.pod
Log:
Finally checking in the autoloading changes despite uncertainty about AUTODEF.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S10.pod
==
Author: larry
Date: Mon Mar 27 14:57:02 2006
New Revision: 8451
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
Added def of prototypes from audreyt++ (with clarification of scoping).
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
=
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 14:54:05 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Make me believe your 90/10 numbers.
http://cpansearch.bulknews.net/ is broken right now... =(
--
Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://nothingmuch.woobling.org 0xEBD27418
pgpCMeQfldQFY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 14:35:52 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > I think that if C is the new C, then immediately after the
> > C line, $x should hold whatever flavor of undef is appropriate.
> >
> > Is there some reason we're h
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 14:35:52 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> How did $x become 10?!?!? :-)
GHC has this lovely error: "my brain just exploded"
I think Perl 6 should have a similar runtime warning about how it's
usiong my sh
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 05:26:48PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my $x = 5;
> {
> temp $x;
> # is $x 5 or undef?
> }
> # $x is definately 10
How did $x become 10?!?!? :-)
> I think it should be 5 inside, because it makes it easy to writ
Hi,
my $x = 5;
{
temp $x;
# is $x 5 or undef?
}
# $x is definately 10
I think it should be 5 inside, because it makes it easy to write
things like:
my $x = 5;
{
temp $x++;
# $x is 6
Damian Conway wrote:
> In other words, this is another example of "Don't use junctions in actions
> with side-effects".
Why not tag functions with side-effects as such (using a trait to that
effect), and then say that short-circuit operators don't short-circuit
when side-effects are involved? Or
Author: larry
Date: Mon Mar 27 04:37:45 2006
New Revision: 8438
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
s/::/!!/
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod(original)
+++ do
Larry wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 02:40:03PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: On the original question, I see it more as a junctional issue.
: Assuming we have only chmod($,$), this sould autothread:
:
: unless chmod MODE, all(@files) -> $oops {
: ???;
: profit();
: }
Except
Jonathan Lang wrote:
How important is it that perl 6 maintains the notion that $foo and
@foo are entirely different things?
Very.
Also, there's the matter of "unneccessary paperwork": if the only
thing that I use the return value for is a boolean test, then all of
the effort involved in l
14 matches
Mail list logo
