--- Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
Errno. That's rather the whole point of Cbut properties [*].
[*] People, we just *have* to find better names for these things!
I'd suggest we henceforth call them value
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:46:43AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Obviously, values are pure and therefrom spring virtues, while
objects are but vile clay -- fallible constructs of a sinful man,
pathetically trying to recreate an envisioned ideal. Ergo, they have
naught but vices.
Can I get
--- Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:46:43AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Obviously, values are pure and therefrom spring virtues, while
objects are but vile clay -- fallible constructs of a sinful man,
pathetically trying to recreate an envisioned ideal.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:52:22PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:46:43AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Obviously, values are pure and therefrom spring virtues, while
objects are but vile clay -- fallible constructs of a sinful man,
pathetically trying to recreate
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:24:23 -0800
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Whipp suggested:
The size constraints are probably Cbut properties, as is Clocked. The
exception behavior probably deserves to remain an Cis property.
Nope. They're all Cis properties. Cbut properties
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dave Whipp wrote:
OK, I've assimilated all that (though it still feels wrong). I think you are
saying that of the following, the 4th is an error.
my @d = @x but Foo; # error: no values involved in this assignment
Correct. Although presumably this:
At 8:46 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
(rather than any particular variable
Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
(rather than any particular variable pointing to it). This lets us
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 8:46 AM + 1/28/03, Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley wrote:
Bugger. I was hoping that Perl 6 was going to make a Pixie like Object
database easier to write; looks like I'm wrong. One of the things
Pixie does is to attach its control data by magic to the object itself
(rather than any
OK, here are the answers so far -- or more accurately, strawman
interpretations of those answers that should be objected to if they're
wrong.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
@a[3] # undef
At 10:13 AM -0800 1/28/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
OK, here are the answers so far -- or more accurately, strawman
interpretations of those answers that should be objected to if
they're wrong.
I think some of this is incorrect which, because Damian thinks
otherwise, will need some hashing out
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 10:20 AM, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:13 AM -0800 1/28/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[3] # undef (warning: index out-of-bounds)
Or a real 0, since you said @a can only return integers.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:13 AM -0800 1/28/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
@a[ Inf ] # undef (warning: can't use Inf as array index)
I'd throw an exception here.
@a[-4]# undef (warning: index out-of-bounds)
@a[-Inf] # undef (warning:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[*] People, we just *have* to find better names for these things!
I'd suggest we henceforth call them value properties (for
Cbut) and referent properties (for Cis).
Hmm. According to this, Creturn 0 is true; would therefore be a
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
OK, here are the answers so far -- or more accurately, strawman
interpretations of those answers that should be objected to if they're
wrong.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
Corrected in accordance with design team member feedback. These should
be solid, now. Thanks much for the responses.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
@a[3] # def (warning: index
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 09:17:36AM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
Errno. That's rather the whole point of Cbut properties [*].
[*] People, we just *have* to find better names for these things!
I'd suggest we henceforth call them value properties (for Cbut)
and referent properties
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 01:02:28PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:00:17AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
locked = 1, # read-only, can't store new values
There was a discussion on p5p about
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Where def is whatever the type-specific
...or user specified...
default is, typically Cundef, C0, or C''.
Damian
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
2) There is NO platform-dependent maximum array size. If it's not a
sparse array, you'll run out of memory long before you run out of
indexes, but using bigints as indexes for sparse arrays is OK.
Current: array size is limited to $arch's +INTVAL (2^31-1 / 2^63-1).
Some requests for verification, plus additional questions. If anyone
has any arguments/clarifications/questions on these, please discuss so
I can document.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
my int @a = (1,2,3);
@a[0] # 1
@a[1] # 2
@a[2] # 3
@a[3]
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:00:17AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
resize = (1024), # internal blocksize (in indexes)
# by which array expands?
resize = { $_ * 2 }, # or via closure, based on current size?
I think you're making too many
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I have some answers from current low level implementation.
2) As hinted above, is there a (platform-dependent) maximum addressable
array index, or do we promise to correctly handle all integers, even if
BigInt? (This might come into play for lazy/sparse arrays.
--- Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:00:17AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
resize = (1024), # internal blocksize (in indexes)
# by which array expands?
resize = { $_ * 2 }, # or via closure, based on
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
... if such capabilities exist, what are their real names? Can
anyone think of any that are absolute must-haves? Are any of the above
must-haves?
I think that the only must-have is the ability
Dave Whipp suggested:
The size constraints are probably Cbut properties, as is Clocked. The
exception behavior probably deserves to remain an Cis property.
Nope. They're all Cis properties. Cbut properties only apply to *values*.
Variable such as Arrays always take Cis properties.
Damian
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Dave Whipp suggested:
The size constraints are probably Cbut properties, as is Clocked.
The
exception behavior probably deserves to remain an Cis property.
Nope. They're all Cis properties. Cbut
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 11:46 AM, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
@a[ undef ] # undef, or 1?
@a['foo'] # undef, or 1?
These should generate warnings, at least.
I don't know whether undef or 1 is more
On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 01:15 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
... if such capabilities exist, what are their real names? Can
anyone think of any that are absolute must-haves? Are any of the
above
must-haves?
I think that the only
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Some requests for verification, plus additional questions. If anyone
has any arguments/clarifications/questions on these, please discuss so
I can document.
1) Edge cases in array indexing:
@a[ undef ] # undef, or 1?
@a['foo'] #
--- Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Anything that holds anything is a variable, not a value.
[...]
I'm saying that only scalar *values* can have Cbut properties.
And yes, that includes Array
Dave Whipp wrote:
OK, I've assimilated all that (though it still feels wrong). I think you are
saying that of the following, the 4th is an error.
my @d = @x but Foo; # error: no values involved in this assignment
Correct. Although presumably this:
my @d = @x »but« Foo;
is okay.
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
