HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
The number of summands might be also unknown. i.e.: map.
when you have
my @a == map { ... } == something()
you can't really know how many elements you have in the first
dimension...
Hmm, I thought that all lists know their length, and if not
they advertise Inf.
Hi,
One of the hardest features in Perl 6 is the slice context. It is
undoubtfully usefull, since it provides semantics to acces each
iteration of a map, for instance.
But there's one thing in the spec that makes not only slices, but the
lists themselves considerably harder to implement, and
HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
That being said, we should note that this example looks simple because
we have almost no lazyness implied (since there's an assignment in the
first line), every list access requires the evaluation of the flatenning
of the list.
my @@a = ((),(1,2,3),());
Mustn't
Em Ter, 2008-12-16 às 18:47 +0100, TSa escreveu:
# the following will require a flatenning to get the actual index
say @a[3];
Could we not shift the problem into a more complicated form
of the size of the array? Here it has size 0+3+0 but each of the
summands could be lazy and hence
I think I'm fine with making them separate. Recursive lazy flattening
seems too evil; slice and list contexts should not try to do the work of
captures. Thanks.
Larry
TSa wrote:
HaloO,
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
That being said, we should note that this example looks simple because
we have almost no lazyness implied (since there's an assignment in the
first line), every list access requires the evaluation of the flatenning
of the list.
my @@a =
