On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
And in general, without resorting to something hideous like scanf, is
there going to be some more-advanced want() variant that allows saying
@a, $i, $j, @b, %w, $k, @c = scramble(...);
This is a terribly important question, fo
On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 10:09 AM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
What about "divvy" (or are we already using that for something else?)
my(@a,@b) = divvy { ... } @c;
Other possibilities from the ol' thesaurus: C, C,
C, C.
@$#@%*. Trying to do too many %#@%@ things at once. I meant 'di
In thinking about how to write a "partition" function (or separate, or
whatever you want to call it) it occurs to me that you might want some
sort of reverse-varargs behavior, like
my (@a, @b, @c, @d) = @array.partiton { $_ % 4 };
So in this case, partition is supposed to determine, on the fly, h
Angel Faus:
> Maybe the solution is to make it hash-wise:
>
> %hash = @array.sep {
> when /^[A-Z]*$/ {'uppercase'}
> when /^[a-z]*$/ {'lowercase'}
> default {'mixedcase'}
> }
I agree that general partitioning is 'better' than a fixed binary proposal,
but what is ga
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> and that's just entirely too much work. I'd love to be able to do
> it with a grep like thing.
>
> (@switches, @args) = seperate /^-/, @ARGV;
>
> seperate() simply returns two lists. One of elements which match,
> one of elements which don't. I think Perl 6 will
Aaron Crane:
> However, I don't think it should be called 'seperate'. I also don't think
> it should be called 'separate', because that word seems to be commonly
> misspelled...
That seems like an excellent argument for calling it 'separate'. Perhaps it
will be the first of many spelling-improvi
Michael G Schwern writes:
> I'd love to be able to do it with a grep like thing.
>
> (@switches, @args) = seperate /^-/, @ARGV;
Yes. I've written that function in Perl 5, which isn't ideal, because you
have to return array refs, not arrays.
However, I don't think it should be called 'seper
> From: "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 00:28:52 -0800
>
> Michael G Schwern:
> # You can do it with a map without much trouble:
> #
> # my @indexes = map { /condition/ ? $i++ : () } @stuff;
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, that won't work, since $i only gets incremented on
>
Michael G Schwern:
# You can do it with a map without much trouble:
#
# my @indexes = map { /condition/ ? $i++ : () } @stuff;
Unless I'm mistaken, that won't work, since $i only gets incremented on
matches. I think this:
my @indexes = map { $i++; /condition/ ? $i : () } @stuff;
Wil
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:21:27 -0800
> From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:08:48PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > About your idea, though, I'm rather indifferent. However, a friend of
> > mine once asked me if Perl had "search" or "find" operation, returning
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 08:08:48PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> About your idea, though, I'm rather indifferent. However, a friend of
> mine once asked me if Perl had "search" or "find" operation, returning
> the I of matching elements. Now am I just being braindead, or
> is Perl actually missing
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:26:17 -0800
> From: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Sender: Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> (The post abou
12 matches
Mail list logo
