Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

TSa wrote: Darren Duncan wrote: Strong typing in Perl means that Perl is conveniently and reliably keeping track of this user-intended interpretation of the data, so it is easy for any piece of code to act on it in a reasonable way. Strong typing lets user code be clean and understandable as

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:50:23PM -0800, Jon Lang wrote: > Darren Duncan wrote: > > Now, with some basic types, I know how to do it, examples: > > > > Bool # Bool::True > > Please forgive my ignorance; but are there any cases where > 'Bool::True' can be spelled more concisely as 'True'? Oth

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

Darren Duncan wrote: > Now, with some basic types, I know how to do it, examples: > > Bool # Bool::True Please forgive my ignorance; but are there any cases where 'Bool::True' can be spelled more concisely as 'True'? Otherwise, this approach seems awfully cluttered. -- Jonathan "Dataweaver

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK, so let's look at the general problem. The structure is this: > > doSomething(); > while (someCondition()) > { > doSomethingElse(); > doSomething(); > } > > ...and you want to factor out the doSomething() call so that it only > has to be spe

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

On 2008-Dec-3, at 10:18 am, TSa wrote: Darren Duncan wrote: Strong typing in Perl means that Perl is conveniently and reliably keeping track of this user-intended interpretation of the data, so it is easy for any piece of code to act on it in a reasonable way. Strong typing lets user code

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

Mark J. Reed wrote: > Mark J. Reed wrote: >> loop >> { >> doSomething(); >> last unless someCondition(); >> doSomethingElse(); >> } > > That is, of course, merely the while(1) version from Aristotle's > original message rewritten with Perl 6's loop keyword. As I said, I'm > OK with that, per

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On 2008-Dec-3, at 12:38 pm, Mark J. Reed wrote: Overall, the goal is to ensure that by the end of the loop the program is in the state of having just called doSomething(), whether the loop runs or not - while also ensuring that the program is in that state at the top of each loop iteration.

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> loop { >>doSomething(); >> next if someCondition(); >>doSomethingElse(); >> } > > That loops forever, doesn't it? But I think this works: > > loop > { >

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > loop { >doSomething(); > next if someCondition(); >doSomethingElse(); > } That loops forever, doesn't it? But I think this works: loop { doSomething(); last unless someCondition(); doSomethingElse(); } -- Mark J. Re

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

oops make that last if !someCondition(); -- Mark Biggar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > loop { > doSomething(); > next if someCondition(); > doSomethingElse(); > } > > -- > Mark Bigg

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

loop { doSomething(); next if someCondition(); doSomethingElse(); } -- Mark Biggar [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Original message -- From: "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > OK, so let's look at the general problem. The struct

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It does seem like a closure trait sort of thing, but I don't think >> it's currently provided by the p6 spec. > > Perhaps PRE ... ? Isn't PRE { blah; } just short for ENTER { die unless blah; } ? It still has the pr

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:26:57PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote: > OK, so let's look at the general problem. The structure is this: > > doSomething(); > while (someCondition()) > { > doSomethingElse(); > doSomething(); > } > > ...and you want to factor out the doSomething() call so that it

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Mark J. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Overall, the goal is to ensure that by the end of the loop the program is in > the state of having just > called doSomething(), whether the loop runs or not - while also ensuring that > the program is in that > state at the

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

OK, so let's look at the general problem. The structure is this: doSomething(); while (someCondition()) { doSomethingElse(); doSomething(); } ...and you want to factor out the doSomething() call so that it only has to be specified once. Is that correct, Aristotle? The "gotcha" is that

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > * Bruce Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-03 18:20]: >> In Perl 5 or Perl 6, why not move the grep() into the while()? > > Because it's only a figurative example and you're supposed to > consider the general problem, not nitpick the specific example… But how is that no

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

* Bruce Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-03 18:20]: > In Perl 5 or Perl 6, why not move the grep() into the while()? Because it’s only a figurative example and you’re supposed to consider the general problem, not nitpick the specific example… Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

HaloO, Darren Duncan wrote: Strong typing in Perl means that Perl is conveniently and reliably keeping track of this user-intended interpretation of the data, so it is easy for any piece of code to act on it in a reasonable way. Strong typing lets user code be clean and understandable as it d

Re: Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

On Dec 3, 2008, at 7:14 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: --snip-- Does Perl 6 have some mechanism so I could write it along the following obvious lines? my $i; while ( @stuff ) { $_->do_something( ++$i ) for @stuff; } # plus some way of attaching this fix-up just once

Support for ensuring invariants from one loop iteration to the next?

Hi all, I occasionally find myself annoyed at having to do something like this (I use Perl 5 vernacular, but it actually crops up in every single language I have ever used): my $i; @stuff = grep !$_->valid, @stuff; while ( @stuff ) { $_->do_something( ++$i ) for @stuff;

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

TSa wrote: Here we could get away with defining two new enums, e.g. Bit::High and Bit::Low. I like that approach. Go the same way as Bool and Order value literals. Don't know why I didn't think of it before. And I want to pose the question if we really need two types Bool and Bit. I wa

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

HaloO, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The literals for Bit are just 0 and 1. I doubt that this works. I assume that there are integer calculations that give the result 1 as an Int. Then comparing these with === to the literal 1 should fail because the types mismatch: my Int $x = 7 - 6; # $x.WHAT

Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?

HaloO, Darren Duncan wrote: But some significant ones I don't know and really want to know: Bit Here we could get away with defining two new enums, e.g. Bit::High and Bit::Low. And I want to pose the question if we really need two types Bool and Bit. Blob Set Bag Mapping [.