Re: For your encouragement

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Geoffrey Broadwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone needs to reply to the comments from readers who have confused > DBI and DBDI, and have thus decided we are turning Perl into Java. DBDI may not be DBI, but they're related, and DBI uses underscores (though I gu

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

Paul (>): > I can't find anything in the existing synopses about Blobs. > Probably looking in the wrong place, sorry. // Carl

Re: why infix::(Int, Int --> Rat)

HaloO, David Green wrote: On 2008-Dec-4, at 3:08 pm, Mark J. Reed wrote: Using "div" instead of "/" should make it pretty clear that you're disposing of the remainder. I strongly agree to that. Actually you are disposing of the fractional part. I misremembered div vs. idiv, but how standar

Re: why infix::(Int, Int --> Rat)

HaloO, Mark J. Reed wrote: Well, respelling it is OK, just not sure how. Python 3 uses // for integer division, but we don't want to open up that can of worms again.. We still haven't used '÷' which is Latin1. But if we use that it should be as infix:<÷>:(Int, Int --> Rat) because this doesn'

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

On 2008-Dec-5, at 7:43 am, David Green wrote: Now the condition is in the middle and is syntactically separate. (It's still not up front, but if the first block is really long, you can always... add a comment!) Well, you don't need a comment -- why not allow the condition to come first?

Re: Regex - Accessing captured subrules could be problematic

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:00:55PM +0100, Moritz Lenz wrote: > GW wrote: > > I found something that could be problematic (haven't yet found out if it > > should be a special case) in Synopsis 5. More precisely it is under the > > chapter "Accessing captured subrules" in the test case > > t/regex/fr

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

(full quote below) > As Duncan said, the real question is what’s the point of having > Bit when we also have both Int and Blob. I think none. I can't find anything in the existing synopses about Blobs. Probably looking in the wrong place, sorry. Blobs can handle arbitrary numbers of bits? If so,

Re: why infix::(Int, Int --> Rat)

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:10 AM, David Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I misremembered div vs. idiv, but how standard is it? I know "div" commonly > means int division, but not always. True enough. In ANSI C, / already does integer division, but there's also a div() function - the difference th

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

On 2008-Dec-4, at 9:09 am, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: And while it does seems like a closure trait, that seems somewhat problematic in that the order of evaluation is weird when compared to other closure traits, which I suppose is what led you to declare the “coy” solution as the most natura

Re: why infix::(Int, Int --> Rat)

On 2008-Dec-4, at 3:08 pm, Mark J. Reed wrote: Using "div" instead of "/" should make it pretty clear that you're disposing of the remainder. I misremembered div vs. idiv, but how standard is it? I know "div" commonly means int division, but not always. On the one hand, some things you j

Equality of values and types (was Re: how to write literals of some Perl 6 types?)

On 2008-Dec-4, at 4:41 pm, Leon Timmermans wrote: On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:34 PM, TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And how about 'Num 1.0 === Complex(1,0) === Int 1'? IMHO the spec on === is quite clear: "two values are never equivalent unless they are of exactly the same type." I guess the

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

* TSa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-12-03 09:30]: > And I want to pose the question if we really need two types > Bool and Bit. I think so. Binary OR and logical OR are different beasts. As Duncan said, the real question is what’s the point of having Bit when we also have both Int and Blob. I think n

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

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:19 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> There are; As long as the short name is unambiguous, it can be used. >> >> >> > > What doe *short* name mean? Bool::T or True? It means "True". In this case "short" means "unqualified" - strip off the package name (leading stuff befor

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

> Please forgive my ignorance; but are there any cases where > 'Bool::True' can be spelled more concisely as 'True'? There are; As long as the short name is unambiguous, it can be used. What doe *short* name mean? Bool::T or True?

Questions on $! (dollar-bang)

Hi, Stephen Weeks asked for clarification on #perl6 on how to implement $!, I didn't find the answer for most the issues. In particular: * S04 states that .defined and .true mark the Exception object as handled. But what do those methods return? alway true (since $! contains undef anyway if ther