Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
- for minimal matching the ? is too far away from the operator that it
applies to. It looks like it's doing something to the closure (and
maybe it is) Should that be [foo]**?{$m..$n} instead?
- Bringing a closure into the picture seems to put too much power in
Simon Cozens wrote:
For heaven's sake. Have you even *seen* the Perl 5 internals? If you don't
trust things which are self-declared scary hackery to be stable, you probably
shouldn't be using Perl until Perl 6 comes out. And probably not until then.
Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried
Peter Behroozi wrote:
I'm not particular to any of the verbs used yet, but maybe that's
because I don't think of the as a general iterator, but more of a
gobbler-type creature (and formerly a globber, too). Could we try:
for $foo.fetch { ... } #or
for $foo.grab { ... } #or
for $foo.eat { ... }
Chromatic wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 14:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
Dan Hursh wrote:
generalimpose scalarimpose list
-----
D$foo.eat$foo.bite$foo.gobble
N$foo.look$foo.peek$foo.peruse
hmm, I don't like eat
David Green wrote:
...but print next $foo is better than print each $foo. ...
print another $foo
for another $foo {...}
while another $foo {..}
It's 5 characters too many, but it works.
Dan
Aaron Sherman wrote:
This bit comes from the p6i list, and I just thought I'd ask those
in-the-know if my suggested returntype role/property would make sense
here, or if there's another way to do it that makes more sense?
For that matter, does MMD on return type map into Perl6's gestalt at
all, or
Larry Wall wrote:
Sounds like you're confusing #3 with #4.
Larry
Could be. Does 3 mean at install time, you down load the latest of the
'supported' packages from the CPAN alike or is it more like versioned
snapshots? (Possibly yet to be decided?) It's the idea of a standard
library being
Aaron Sherman wrote:
Do any C++ programmers consider the STL to be anything other than in
core even though it's not part of the compiler, and with at least GCC,
it's distributed as a separate component?
Do any C programmers consider strlen or sprintf to be outside of the
core? It's part of the
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: 2. Really core. This is the sort of standard library. Just the most
: essential bits that are required for general Perl usability. You'd
: probably include most of these, even in a trimmed down release, such
: as an OS
Larry Wall wrote:
No Yes
-- ---
@foo@foo[1]
%bar%bar{a} or %bar«a»
$foo.bar$foo.bar()
foofoo(1)
I may have missed it, but what are the contexts in these cases? I'm
thinking the first two are easily scalar. Are the second list
Luke Palmer wrote:
JOSEPH RYAN writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is
reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and should
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:18AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Another alternative is $( $file ).ext. I'd tend to use that before
: ${file}.ext these days. Perhaps that's irrational--but it was hard
: to get the special-case ${name} form to work right in the Perl 5
: lexer, and
Michele Dondi wrote:
A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
print,next if /stgh/;
Ouch. I hadn't thought of that. I'm a big fan of litering loops with
discard(),next if dontCareBecause(); # it don't matter here
type constructs. I was going to suggest
Joseph Ryan wrote:
The way I understand the magicness of lazy lists, I'd expect:
@x = 3..Inf;
say pop @x; # prints Inf
@x = 3..Inf;
push @x, 6; # an array with the first part being
# lazy, and then the element 6
say pop @x; # prints 6
say pop @x; # prints Inf
say pop @x; # prints Inf
Hi,
If I can assume:
@x = 3..5;
say pop @x;# prints 5
@x = 3..5;
push @x, 6;
say pop @x;# prints 6
say pop @x;# prints 5
What should I expect for the following?
@x = 3..Inf;
say pop @x;# heat death?
Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider this test in Perl:
if \0 {...}
Its equivalent in C is this:
if () ...
That can't be right. If anything it's got the two languages
flipped, but that's still not quite right either. Apples and
orange
16 matches
Mail list logo
