On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19.37, Damian Conway wrote:
> Deborah Pickett wrote:
> > Someone please convince me otherwise.
> So what you want is not an identity value as default (which isn't even
> possible for many operators, as Luke pointed out), but a predictable
> failure value
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13.19, Joe Gottman wrote:
> > Juerd asked:
> > >>2+ args: interpolate specified operator
> > >>1 arg: return that arg
> > >>0 args: fail (i.e. thrown or unthrown exception depending on use
> > fatal)
> >
> > > Following this logic, does join(" ", @foo) with [EMAIL
Piers Cawley wrote:
One of the 'mental apps' that's been pushing some of the things I've been
asking for in Perl 6's introspection system is a combined
refactoring/debugging/editing environment for the language. One of the
annoyances of the 'only perl can parse Perl' thing is not so much the trut
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07.25, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I cannot open a file for writing (permissions, out of space,
> > write locked, etc), I want to know the instant I attempt to open it
> > as such, _not_ when I later attempt to write to it. Having al
Mark Lentczner wrote:
Awhile back, I saw Larry Wall give a short talk about the current design
of Perl 6. At some point he put up a list of all the operators - well
over a hundred of them! I had a sudden inspiration, but it took a few
months to get around to drawing it...
http://www.ozoneho
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 05.30, John Siracusa wrote:
> The only case that seems even
> remotely onerous is this one:
>
> my My::Big::Class::Name $obj = My::Big::Class::Name.new();
> vs.
> my My::Big::Class::Name $obj .= new()
There's also the related issue of in-place operations on some
di
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10.51, Damian Conway wrote:
> There are also cases where something like:
>
> $a ||= $b;
>
> or:
>
> $a += $b;
>
> changes the type of value in $a. Should we flag those too? Currently we do
> warn on the second one if $a can't be cleanly coerced to numeric. Would
> th
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15.40, Joe Gottman wrote:
>This is unrelated to the problem you mentioned, but there is another
> annoying problem with sort as it is currently defined. If you have an
> @array and you want to replace it with the sorted version, you have to type
> @array = sort @array;
