Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 9:38 PM, David Green wrote: https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484228982 Is this something that better fits the way you think? Hi David, I really don't do well with such. Thank you for the tip anyway. -T

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:52 PM, David Green wrote: On 2018-10-02 6:28 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short for "postcircumfix"? Again, search for "postcircumfix" in docs.perl6.org, and you will get this:

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much more than buying a book? Certainly, some people learn better aurally than visually. 

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-10-02 6:28 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short for "postcircumfix"? Again, search for "postcircumfix" in docs.perl6.org, and you will get this: https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#index-entry-postcircumfix_operator >>term++  postfix

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/3/18 11:33 AM, ToddAndMargo wrote: On 10/2/18 10:16 PM, David Green wrote: On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote:  >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 10:16 PM, David Green wrote: On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much more than buying a book? Certainly, some

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 9:02 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: The Perl6 community is warm, generous, and intellectually inspiring. Those virtues should be defended against unseemly and intemperate language. Calling a documentation writer a 'jerk' is wrong. Agreed. They are very much so. And since you are a

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

> On 3 Oct 2018, at 02:48, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > On 10/2/18 2:24 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: >> Also, a hopefully less steep introduction: >> >> https://opensource.com/article/18/9/signatures-perl-6 >> > > Will do! Thank you! > > Do you have an index to other stuff you have

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much more than buying a book? Certainly, some people learn better aurally than visually. 

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-09-30 9:31 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote: >By the way, schools have books.  Why is it do you suppose that that schools also have teacher? Well, why is it, do you suppose, that hiring a tutor costs so much more than buying a book? Certainly, some people learn better aurally than visually. 

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

This could only too easily become a flame war, so I am replying once and will not answer again unless it is about substance. The Perl6 community is warm, generous, and intellectually inspiring. Those virtues should be defended against unseemly and intemperate language. Calling a documentation

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/2018 5:45 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote:     Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short     for "postcircumfix"? Nope.  Each are different types of oeprator. 

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:51 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:46 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com> >

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:51 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:28:01PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 10/2/18 11:23 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote: : >So, to recap: a postfix `[]` acts on whatever is on its left, : >pulling out elements from the thing on its left, treated as : >a list like thing,

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:46 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo > > wrote: > > > > Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short > > for "postcircumfix"? > > > > > > Nope.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 05:28:01PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 10/2/18 11:23 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote: : >So, to recap: a postfix `[]` acts on whatever is on its left, : >pulling out elements from the thing on its left, treated as : >a list like thing, with the elements selected according to :

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 2:24 AM, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote: Also, a hopefully less steep introduction: https://opensource.com/article/18/9/signatures-perl-6 Will do! Thank you! Do you have an index to other stuff you have written?

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 2:01 AM, Simon Proctor wrote: https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature Todd can I ask that you read this page of the docs for two reasons. Firstly understanding Signatures will go a long way to helping you to understand the rest of the docs, and secondly so you can give use your take

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 5:31 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short for "postcircumfix"? Nope.  Each are different types of oeprator.  Here is the list:

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 8:28 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > Question: in Perl syntaxland, is "postfix" short > for "postcircumfix"? > Nope. Each are different types of oeprator. Here is the list: https://docs.perl6.org/language/operators#Operator_classification

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 11:23 AM, Ralph Mellor wrote: So, to recap: a postfix `[]` acts on whatever is on its left, pulling out elements from the thing on its left, treated as a list like thing, with the elements selected according to the index(es) inside the brackets. Perfect! Thank you! I am going to

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

> On Oct 2, 2018, at 04:40, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > I am thinking of doing an RFE to place at the front > of the routines documentation that introduces the reader > on how to read THAT line in the documentation -- what > the abbreviations and symbols and the like mean. Referring the reader to

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/2/18 6:06 AM, Rocco Caputo wrote: On Oct 2, 2018, at 04:40, ToddAndMargo > wrote: I am thinking of doing an RFE to place at the front of the routines documentation that introduces the reader on how to read THAT line in the documentation -- what the

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 9:11 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: But I thought you just implied you wanted pro stuff, not beginner stuff. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said. I want the beginners stuff included with the pro stuff. So what is wanted is 'common user' stuff (see below). You are

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/1/18 4:17 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: That just sounds like the backing store got restored from backup, losing anything added after the backup was taken. Which is not the best way to do things (incrementals are nice), but if things had gone wrong enough might have been the best they could

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

>> On 10/1/18 3:37 PM, Donald Hunter wrote: >> > Methods don't accept [], values that are positional do that. >> Is your distinction that [] is actually a routine in itself >> and not part of the method? And I am lumping them together? On 10/2/18 12:18 AM,

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Also, a hopefully less steep introduction: https://opensource.com/article/18/9/signatures-perl-6 > On 2 Oct 2018, at 11:01, Simon Proctor wrote: > > https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature > > Todd can I ask that you read this page of the docs for two reasons. Firstly > understanding

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature Todd can I ask that you read this page of the docs for two reasons. Firstly understanding Signatures will go a long way to helping you to understand the rest of the docs, and secondly so you can give use your take on it pointing out any areas you think could

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Le dim. 30 sept. 2018 à 11:32, ToddAndMargo > a écrit : On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born > knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc raises the same

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/1/18 1:20 AM, Siavash wrote: You can read the thread here: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.users/2018/09/msg5757.html On 2018-10-01 04:21:43 +0330, ToddAndMargo wrote: Hi All, My "Perl" box got corrupted and in the process of rebuilding it I lost this thread except for one

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Le mar. 2 oct. 2018 à 08:05, ToddAndMargo > a écrit : On 10/1/18 3:37 PM, Donald Hunter wrote: > toddandma...@zoho.com (ToddAndMargo) writes: >> >> Hi Curt, >> >> Perfect! Thank you! >> >> So

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Yes, [] acts on the result (a positional, e.g. a list) returned by function or method, it does not act on the function or method itself. You have more or less the same in Perl 5, for example: my $first_item = (split /;/, $string)[0]; Here, the [0] acts on the list returned by split. Le mar. 2

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 10/1/18 3:37 PM, Donald Hunter wrote: toddandma...@zoho.com (ToddAndMargo) writes: Hi Curt, Perfect! Thank you! So all methods that respond with --> Positional will accept [] Awesome! -T Not quite. All methods that respond with --> Positional, provide a Positional that will accept []

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

toddandma...@zoho.com (ToddAndMargo) writes: > > Hi Curt, > > Perfect! Thank you! > > So all methods that respond with --> Positional will accept [] > > Awesome! > > -T Not quite. All methods that respond with --> Positional, provide a Positional that will accept [] Methods don't accept [],

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

That just sounds like the backing store got restored from backup, losing anything added after the backup was taken. Which is not the best way to do things (incrementals are nice), but if things had gone wrong enough might have been the best they could do. On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 7:13 PM

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:58 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: There is one line per signature, or definition. You misunderstand. I was proposing a different way of stating it such that you did not have to keep repeating lines with slight differences

Re: No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 9:11 PM, Richard Hainsworth wrote: your 'perl' box was corrupted. Somewhere the imap daemons got appeased and suddenly a day later, I watched it all come blazing back. Hopefully tomorrow I will get a chance to read over what yo wrote. By the way, the eMail I send about the thread

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

You can read the thread here: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.users/2018/09/msg5757.html On 2018-10-01 04:21:43 +0330, ToddAndMargo wrote: > Hi All, > > My "Perl" box got corrupted and in the process of rebuilding > it I lost this thread except for one one message from JJ. > Anyway,

No. It is lucid! Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Todd, I've already added to this conversation given that your 'perl' box was corrupted. But when I read this post last week, I felt it needed some response. You actually have touched on some deep issues. Please allow for some humour below. First off, courses, beginners books, and the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 7:07 AM, Peter Scott wrote: gain, covered in the excellent tutorial material that you are determined not to read and are instead extracting message by message from the members of this list. That latter approach is going to end up being more frustrating and alienating for you in the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Todd, Since your 'perl box' got corrupted, may be you missed Yary's message (copied below). Yary shared a frank viewpoint that I entirely agree with. Several people have said 'read a book'. Reading a book - even if it can be hard sometimes - is a courteous thing to do in a community that has

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Hi All, My "Perl" box got corrupted and in the process of rebuilding it I lost this thread except for one one message from JJ. Anyway, I am not deliberately ignoring anyone, I just lost the thread. :'( -T

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Todd, allow me to distill the situation from my POV. There are many sources of Perl 5 docs. "perldoc -f ..." is one of them, and it works well for you. There are also a choice of Perl 6 docs. "https://docs.perl6.org/; is one of them, and it doesn't work well for you, but of all the perl6 docs,

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 2:45 AM, ToddAndMargo wrote: The manual need to be written for the common user to understand, not just developer level and very advanced users.  They don't need the manual anyway. Of course we do. I constantly refer to the Perl 5 manual rather than waste memory on rote

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

In the second line of my reply I was referring to the difference in flattening. In the first line I was saying that sub takes a list, but method doesn't, its invocant is a list. On 2018-09-30 14:18:53 +0330, ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/30/18 3:02 AM, Siavash wrote: >> Because one is a method

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:48 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: Nothing less that good Oklahoma tar and turkey feathers will do. JJ Will do! Perl6 is a shining example of kaisen. Every new thing I learn about it, I adore it.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Hi Todd, I disagree with you. The P6 documentation can certainly be improved, but it is quite good and clear already. Remember that it is technical documentation, not a tutorial. And the example you chose to give does not support your point: the P6 documentation for join is just at least as clear

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 12:51, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > On 9/30/18 3:00 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > Hi > > > > El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 11:18, ToddAndMargo ( > >) escribió: > > > > On 9/30/18 1:21 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > > > > > > > > El

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:00 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: Hi El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 11:18, ToddAndMargo (>) escribió: On 9/30/18 1:21 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > > El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 10:15, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users >

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 12:35, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > On 9/30/18 3:17 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > > > I actually found the Perl 6 description more readable. And the example > > is better too. > > I was showing the different philosophies. And I do agree, > the Perl 6 was one of the better

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 12:31, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > On 9/30/18 3:03 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > > > > > El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 11:32, ToddAndMargo ( > >) escribió: > > > > On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > > And again: this is

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:02 AM, Siavash wrote: Because one is a method and the other is a sub. Look at "List:D:". And they are not identical, the last example showed the difference. The sub sure seems like it slurps to me. $ p6 'join( ", ", 1, 2, 3).say;' 1, 2, 3 What am I missing?

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:17 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: I actually found the Perl 6 description more readable. And the example is better too. I was showing the different philosophies. And I do agree, the Perl 6 was one of the better descriptions. Perl 6 usually gets it butt kicked by perldocs.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:17 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: But I think the example should show the slurpy part too. (join ', ', 1, 2, 3) It does now https://github.com/perl6/doc/issues/2344 Thanks for the suggestion. Cheers How about showing it both as a sub and as a method?

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:02 AM, Siavash wrote: People have suggested you to try a book and you have disagreed. Square peg, round hole

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 3:03 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 11:32, ToddAndMargo (>) escribió: On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born > knowing perl 5; to someone who

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 2:55 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: The star in the signature states that @list is a slurpy (or variadic) parameter, i.e. that @list will slurp up all remaining arguments provided to the subroutine. See:

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 6:12 PM, Peter Scott wrote: On 9/26/2018 3:21 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: I use words all the time.  I never would have figured it out from     multi method words(Str:D $input: $limit = Inf --> Positional) Do your really think any beginner would be able to figure out "words" from the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 12:04, Siavash () escribió: > > On 2018-09-30 13:01:32 +0330, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > >> And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born > >> knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 11:32, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > > And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born > > knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc raises the same > > kinds of questions you have been

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 2018-09-30 13:01:32 +0330, ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: >> And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born >> knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc raises the >> same kinds of questions you have been asking, and the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Hi El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 11:18, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > On 9/30/18 1:21 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > > > > > El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 10:15, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users > > (mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>>) escribió: > > > > the words method is extracting items from an input

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

The star in the signature states that @list is a slurpy (or variadic) parameter, i.e. that @list will slurp up all remaining arguments provided to the subroutine. See: https://docs.perl6.org/type/Signature#index-entry-slurpy_argument Le dim. 30 sept. 2018 à 11:32, ToddAndMargo a écrit : > On

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 2:37 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: There is no need for a question mark after the $limit parameter, since supplying a default value for a parameter is sufficient to make this parameter optional. In this instance "yes", it is redundant. But, other instances where a

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

There is no need for a question mark after the $limit parameter, since supplying a default value for a parameter is sufficient to make this parameter optional. Le dim. 30 sept. 2018 à 11:17, ToddAndMargo a écrit : > On 9/30/18 1:21 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: > > > > > > El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 7:27 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc raises the same kinds of questions you have been asking, and the answers have to be found in perlsyn or perldata, etc. Which

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/30/18 1:21 AM, JJ Merelo wrote: El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 10:15, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users (mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>>) escribió: the words method is extracting items from an input string. The $limit parameter tells the words method to extract not more than

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El dom., 30 sept. 2018 a las 10:15, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users (< perl6-users@perl.org>) escribió: > the words method is extracting items from an input string. The $limit > parameter tells the words method to extract not more than $limit items from > the string. Setting the default to Inf

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

Hi El sáb., 29 sept. 2018 a las 7:53, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > Proposed addition to "words": > > "$limits" is an optional argument. When left empty, the > value defaults to Inf (Infinity), meaning "without bound" > or "no limit" > > Inf means without bonds _always_. It says

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 6:28 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:50:31PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 9/27/18 12:40 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: : > > I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. : > : >Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for :

RE: Could this be any more obscure?

but it's a blast... Mark -Original Message- From: Larry Wall mailto:la...@wall.org>> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 21:28 To: ToddAndMargo mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com>> Cc: perl6-users@perl.org<mailto:perl6-users@perl.org> Subject: Re: Could this be any more obscure? On Fri

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

> > -Original Message- > From: Larry Wall > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 21:28 > To: ToddAndMargo > Cc: perl6-users@perl.org > Subject: Re: Could this be any more obscure? > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:50:31PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: > : On 9/27/18 12:40 AM

RE: Could this be any more obscure?

Kudos to the Benevolent Dictator! I'll have to loop over this a few times, but it's a blast... Mark -Original Message- From: Larry Wall Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 21:28 To: ToddAndMargo Cc: perl6-users@perl.org Subject: Re: Could this be any more obscure? On Fri, Sep 28, 2018

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 03:50:31PM -0700, ToddAndMargo wrote: : On 9/27/18 12:40 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: : > > I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. : > : >Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for : >$limit, $limit will take the default value

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 4:36 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:23 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: How about just:       When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity)       represents "without bound" or "no limit". That would have certainly

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 7:23 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > How about just: > > When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity) > represents "without bound" or "no limit". > > That would have certainly tipped me off > I think you are trying to tie its meaning as an argument to the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 3:54 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity)         represents "without bound" or "no limit" Thank you! How about just: When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity) represents "without bound" or "no limit". That would have

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/28/18 3:45 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > > > The value Inf (Infinity) represents "without bound" or > > "no limit" (meaning "all possible values") when used > > as an argument. > > > Better written would be: > >

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

It only means that in some cases. Consider if you are writing code that places items in a grid, and you support Inf as a grid coordinate meaning "not on the grid" which might be represented differently or which might place it at whatever edge of the grid is relevant (without forcing you to know

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/27/18 12:40 AM, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: > I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for $limit, $limit will take the default value supplied by the signature, i.e. Inf. True, but that is not what the

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 3:45 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: The value Inf (Infinity) represents "without bound" or "no limit" (meaning "all possible values") when used as an argument. Better written would be: When used as an argument, the value Inf (Infinity) represents "without

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 10:37 AM, Brandon Allbery wrote: We're going to have a problem if "infinity" is not allowed in the presence of some programmers. "All values" can mean too many things in too many situations. And I don't think using * works here, quite, precisely because it can mean too many things.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 12:34 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: On 9/28/18 10:42 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > Indeed we do, we have a special value just for that -- Inf or ∞. Inf or ∞ still means (to me) a number too large

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 2:57 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/28/18 10:42 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: > > Indeed we do, we have a special value just for that -- Inf or ∞. > > Inf or ∞ still means (to me) a number too large to represent. > But, I can't think of another way to say "all of them". > So if

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/28/18 10:42 AM, Curt Tilmes wrote: Indeed we do, we have a special value just for that -- Inf or ∞. Inf or ∞ still means (to me) a number too large to represent. But, I can't think of another way to say "all of them".

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > So how am I suppose to enter that as a value? You can enter it as just plain Inf, or, if you are up to it, my preferred form: ∞ > What it really means is "all of them". It means infinite. For the .words() method, you can pass in an

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

We're going to have a problem if "infinity" is not allowed in the presence of some programmers. "All values" can mean too many things in too many situations. And I don't think using * works here, quite, precisely because it can mean too many things. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:32 PM ToddAndMargo

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 11:34 PM, JJ Merelo wrote: El mié., 26 sept. 2018 a las 23:31, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users (mailto:perl6-users@perl.org>>) escribió: You can set a limit to the number of items (words) you want to retrieve: you will get only the first $limit words. If you don't

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

> Il giorno 26 set 2018, alle ore 08:57, Todd Chester > ha scritto: > > Hi All, > > Over on >https://docs.perl6.org/routine/words > I see > > multi method words(Str:D $input: $limit = Inf --> Positional) $input is the method invocant (hence the “:”) constrained to a defined string

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

In Perl 6 most normal operators are subroutines: @a[1..3] :« [ ] »( @a,1..3 ) # same as above Since they are just subroutines they often just call something else. # an overly simplified version sub postcircumfix:« [ ] » ( @array, **@indicies ) { gather {

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

> I am NOT asking it to limit my request to Infinity. Yes you are, implicitly. If you don't pass any parameter for $limit, $limit will take the default value supplied by the signature, i.e. Inf. Le jeu. 27 sept. 2018 à 02:48, ToddAndMargo a écrit : > On 9/26/18 4:33 PM, The Sidhekin wrote: >

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El jue., 27 sept. 2018 a las 3:51, ToddAndMargo () escribió: > On 9/26/18 6:31 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: > > On 9/26/18 6:18 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote:> > > > > The methods don't take []. You are calling [] on the thing > > that the > > > > methods return. > > > >>> > >>> Yes, I know.

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El jue., 27 sept. 2018 a las 3:19, Brandon Allbery () escribió: > Additionally: Perl 5 docs don't run into this because perl 5 has only 3 > types: scalar, list, hash. > > Perl 6 has lots of types, each of which has its own behavior. We use roles > to package up common > _and_ roles _and_

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

El mié., 26 sept. 2018 a las 23:31, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users (< perl6-users@perl.org>) escribió: > You can set a limit to the number of items (words) you want to retrieve: > you will get only the first $limit words. > > If you don't supply any limit, Inf can be thought as the default

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 7:28 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: I often feel like perlmonks is about 80% of what's wrong with perl 5 these days. And they are G-R-O-U-C-H-Y too!!!

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 7:28 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:19 PM ToddAndMargo > wrote: My understanding it that if it uses "--Positinal" I can use [] Yes.  Everything described here: https://docs.perl6.org/type/Positional You can also call

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 7:01 PM, Curt Tilmes wrote: And where is it stated that an empty () defaults to all of them and not to none of them? empty() says set everything to defaults If you have sub foo($x = 3) { say $x } and call foo(2), $x will be set to 2 and it will print out 2. If you don't

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

I often feel like perlmonks is about 80% of what's wrong with perl 5 these days. On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 10:27 PM ToddAndMargo wrote: > On 9/26/18 6:36 PM, The Sidhekin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:14 AM Peter Scott > > wrote: > > > > On 9/26/2018 3:21 PM,

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

And again: this is only because you know perl 5. People are not born knowing perl 5; to someone who doesn't know it, perldoc raises the same kinds of questions you have been asking, and the answers have to be found in perlsyn or perldata, etc. Which is exactly what you have been complaining about

Re: Could this be any more obscure?

On 9/26/18 6:36 PM, The Sidhekin wrote: On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 3:14 AM Peter Scott > wrote: On 9/26/2018 3:21 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: > Do your really think any beginner would be able to figure out > "words" from the above? If the beginner had studied

  1   2   >