Comma in (sub) traits?

this has been discussed before, or even in the design documents. I'm also sorry if this is too rambling for the list. It's not that important, just a thought. Cheers, wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Comma in (sub) traits?

see. I still do want to match against constants in the signature, however: sub foo ( 0 ){ ... } sub foo ( $bar ) { ... } So I'm very confused about my opinion on the issue of pattern matching.. > Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

List constructors

. :) -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: New S29 draft up

t, but it's an idea. > Juerd -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Pugs Bug

tting and whitespace trimming. (Specific > proposals to p6l please.)) Shouldn't these be just methods? > Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Pugs Bug

sure how to reconcile this. Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence. > Maybe there's a pragma that lets you control how much coercion > happens. use coercion :oppressively; # They're adverbs, after all! > Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Blocks, continuations and eval()

uld be a method on coderefs or blocks. Is there a difference between the two? I always hated this about Ruby; there seems to be no practical value to the separation. Also, are blocks/coderefs/scopes continuations? Should .eval be a method in Continuation? Thanks, -- wolverian signature.

Re: Blocks, continuations and eval()

't if they are possible, but about what blocks, coderefs and scopes are. I'm sorry if I was unclear. I probably should have spent more time writing the post. :) > --Dks -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocks, continuations and eval()

(or some other way to do that). > -Melvin -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Context of hash slices; quotation adverbs

eses on every method and sub call. Then a reference to the method/sub would be simply its name without the parens. I hope I never have to design my own language. I would be schizophrenic before the day ends. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Blocks, continuations and eval()

fine with that, as that's just one method of capturing the calling continuation. > Larry -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Code classes

The .foo syntax is very special, after all, so you can't really be consistent with it. I prefer it be the topic, in any case. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: single element lists

make (1)[0] die horribly. (1)[0] means 1[0], which is probably undefined, so it dies. That could be detected at compile time. (my $foo = 1)[0] means $foo[0], which would die at runtime, unless there's type inference going on. In any case, I don't see a List in ()[] without a list-creating exp

Re: ^method ?

I believe you are thinking in Perl 5. :) In Perl 6, &foo is a reference to the function foo, and never a call. That makes it symmetric with the other $.foo notations. > Matt -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Perl development server

you to change the first time you get > the chance. I'd like a login, username wolverian. Thanks! > Please let me know which software you want installed. If it's in Debian > and doesn't conflict with other software, you can have it (but no X or > openoffice, or the l

Re: Perl development server

about 'sipuli'? That's what onion is called in Finnish. :) Anyway, I do think the name should be English, to be as accessible as possible. 'Feather' is nice, and reminds me of Pugs's origins. On the other hand, maybe 'falcon' (as terribly cliched as it is)

(OT) Re: Perl development server

ng is different. (Finnish in general has some _very_ old forms of words that have degenerated ages ago in other languages.) -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Perl development server

On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote: > But I like the newly suggested "feather" better, as it can relate to > pugs AND parrot. Feather is best one thus far, I think. I like carrot too; it's more playful. I equate Pugs with fun a lot. -- wolverian sign

Re: (1,(2,3),4)[2]

erator with side effects. (I'm strange like that.) -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: (1,(2,3),4)[2]

cs > (hey, i think i said that correctly! :). = is still fine for basic > assignment and everyone will understand it immediately. I thought the op is visually so obvious it wouldn't need any explanation, even for newbies. Too bad what I _think_ is often not what actually _is_. -- wolver

Re: Transparent / Opaque references

eally_ like the explicit 'method' name that methods have. Calling them subs doesn't make sense to me. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

File.seek() interface

tics, of course. :) Any thoughts/decisions? -- wolverian pgpjdFXn6ex1J.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: File.seek() interface

On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:18:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote: > I'm a pretty high level guy, so I don't know about the performance > implications of that. Maybe we want to keep seek() low level, anyway. Sorry about replying to myself, but I want to ask a further question on th

Re: File.seek() interface

r so? Now I'm tempted to make it a generic infix .new. (args)`Class; It's almost as confusing as SML! -- wolverian pgpjlZIJ8VhS2.pgp Description: PGP signature

.chars, .bytes, etc.

- if there should be an .elems method, leave it at returning an Int at all times. @foo.elems returning the elements in @foo makes no sense. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Stringification, numification, and booleanification of pairs

On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote: > Hackers on this list, what do you think? I think separating the two is extremely confusing. I do not see any uses for it, but maybe I am not thinking hard enough. -- wolverian signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Re(vised): Proposal to make class method non-inheritable

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 08:25:15AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > [snip] > > Of course, there's never been any controversy here about what to call > "self", oh no... :-) IMHO just call it "self" (by default) and be done with it. :) -- wolverian, contributing to the general disagreement