On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: :or
: :
: :given ( /home/temp/, $f )
: : - ( str $x , int $n ) {
: : $x ~ [one, two, ... , hundreed][$n]
: : };
: :
: :it seems that the last does not work because given take
Damian Conway wrote:
:or
:
:given ( /home/temp/, $f )
: - ( str $x , int $n ) {
: $x ~ [one, two, ... , hundreed][$n]
: };
:
:it seems that the last does not work because given take only one argument.
:
: That's right. But this does:
:
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
| ! - superpositional
all any one (none?)
I don't understand this, on several levels. The lowest level on which
I don't understand it is that testing whether an array is full of threes:
@array 3
makes
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:10:31PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Here's try #2. Things that are not true operators or have other
caveats are marked, where known. LMKA.
methods and listops, uncategorized:
my our
map grep
sqrtlogsin cos tan
Simon Cozens wrote:
I don't understand this, on several levels. The lowest level on which
I don't understand it is that testing whether an array is full of threes:
array 3
Err...that's not what that does. What you wrote creates a scalar value that
superimposes the scalar values C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
Err...that's not what that does. What you wrote creates a scalar value that
superimposes the scalar values C \@array and C 3 .
To test if an array is full of 3's you'd write:
all(@array) == 3
Ah, I see. So (x y) is equivalent to all(x,y) ?
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions :
* are stream separators ; | in the for loop - operators
in the usual sence ( like , ) or they are pure grammar ?
* is prototype of the subrotine more regexp then expression ?
to what extent it is a regexp ? where it is stored , can we inspect it
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: * are stream separators ; | in the for loop - operators
: in the usual sence ( like , ) or they are pure grammar ?
If ;, probably operator, though behaving a bit differently on
the left of - than on the right, since the right is essentially
a signature.
Damian Conway wrote:
~~ !~ - smartmatch and/or perl5 '=~' (?)
like unlike- (tentative names)
Do we *really* need the alphabetic synonyms here?
Me no like!
I agree with Damian. Clike wouldn't've been a bad name for the Perl 5
C=~ operator;
Simon Cozens wrote:
Ah, I see. So (x y) is equivalent to all(x,y) ?
Yes. Cany, Call, and Cone are the n-ary prefix versions
of binary infix C|, C, C! respectively.
One might imagine others of this ilk too, perhaps:
BinaryN-ary
+sum
*prod
fearcadi wrote:
* do we have have an axcess to the signature of the
subroutine if we have been passed only its reference .
that is , for exemple , can
process( x , step )
guess how many arguments step expects ?
I'd expect that Code objects would have a Csignature or Csig method:
Excellent (and valuble) work Michael. Thank-you.
My turn for a few comments:
| ! - superpositional
all any one (none?)
Although there certainly are good uses for a Cnone superpositional:
push list, $newval
if $newval eq none(list);
print In range\n
12 matches
Mail list logo
