Re: Can I use my Perl5 .pm modules in Perl6?

dha -- David H. Adler - <d...@pobox.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ You're still hoping for a new, good Star Trek series??? You must be a Cubs fan. - Michael G. Schwern

Proposed doc for while/until

Note: Proposing to put this *above* repeat/while / repeat/until. https://gist.github.com/dha/0a0736b9da74a8e61e49 dha -- David H. Adler - <d...@pobox.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ A feature is often a bug with seniority.- Chip Salzenberg

Re: Proposed docs for C

the problem is the original > code is a bit overly-contrived (I'm thinking ;-). It shows better the > variation after each call, maybe. my 2.00e-02 dollars worth. So, how about this perl6 -e 'sub a {state @x; @x.push(++$)}; say a for 1..6;' [1] [1 2] [1 2 3] [1 2 3 4] [1 2 3

Re: Proposed docs for C

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 04:42:27PM -0400, Parrot Raiser wrote: > On 9/16/15, David H. Adler <d...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > So, how about this > > > > perl6 -e 'sub a {state @x; @x.push(++$)}; say a for 1..6;' > > > > [1] > > [1 2] > >

Proposed docs for C

Maybe a bit long, but think it explains it in a way people will understand. Thoughts? https://gist.github.com/dha/8009c28d7bf2d1ca8875 dha -- David H. Adler - <d...@pobox.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ I think the scale of relative badness is broken in this place. - Diablo

Re: Proposed docs for C

, is less visually complicated and gets the point across more directly. [1 1 1 1] next [1 1 1 1 1 1] next [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] How strongly do people feel about this? dha -- David H. Adler - <d...@pobox.com> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Damn, if this doesn't win me "Pedant of the Year

Suggestions on documentation for C and C

Well, the thing with C is more of a question... https://gist.github.com/dha/02f1f41b5f8937c0271e And for C some suggested documentation I'd like to get some extra eyes on before I commit. https://gist.github.com/dha/d8ab9b8cf852d358bfaf Thanks! dha -- David H. Adler - <d...@panix.

Re: What are Perl 6's killer advantages over Perl 5?

like that in the coming days. dha -- David H. Adler - d...@panix.com - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ Your point being... - Homer Simpson

slurpy hash

that Rakudo* seems to think that the subroutine should expect *0* arguments. So... clearly there's a problem here, but I'm not sure if it's with Rakudo* or with my thinking. :-) Any thoughts on this matter would be appreciated. many thanks, dha -- David H. Adler - d...@panix.com - http://www.panix.com