raiph

18 ms·

91.
by raiph 7y ago
> In my view, Perl 6 doubled down on the eclecticism when many users had expected it to double down on the practicality. Is your view of its practicality based on using it heavily or have you mostly or completely left it alone because it
92.
by raiph 7y ago
I see no realistic weight behind the notion that P5 will be deprecated in the foreseeable future (decades).
93.
by raiph 7y ago
> CPAN also exists, but not as it once did. Right, it's way better. What makes you ignore all the great improvements the PTS have made?
94.
by raiph 7y ago
> "Perl 6 is defined as a set of test cases." ... "Perl 6 is done" Quoting Larry Wall from 2000: > [we should] develop the real regression tests into a validation test of what the language actually means and actual
95.
by raiph 7y ago
In P6 culture, the word "spec" is considered an ambiguous word that can mean several very different things including: * Specification. The P6 language is specified by a test suite called Roast. There are "release" tags,
96.
by raiph 7y ago
It's the way many OOP languages went, but it's not intrinsic to OOP. I recall encountering Emerald in the late 1980s. Here's its 1989 paper on composition over inheritance (code reuse wise): http://www.emeraldprog
97.
by raiph 7y ago
If you say they should be considered 15 characters then software and devs should support optionally indexing and counting them as 15 characters. This is the most important point. And, as a corollary, software devs should aspire to have and
98.
by raiph 7y ago
Yes, that's deliberate. If you use an ordinary `when` (with its statement(s) on the right) then P6 assumes it should succeed with the value of the last statement of the matched `when`. To succeed means to leave the block and return tha
99.
by raiph 7y ago
> They've reinvented OCaml / SML pattern matching. I don't think so. ML pattern matching is statically machine checkable for exhaustiveness. P6 matching is dynamic. Aiui what they've done is generalized matching. This
100.
by raiph 7y ago
Thanks. I think I now understand what your point was/is. > The grapheme is the smallest semantic unit of human-readable text. Fwiw, quoting wikipedia: "An individual grapheme may or may not carry meaning". > Any code th
101.
by raiph 7y ago
"इंडेक्स" का क्या अर्थ है? [1] Including the quote marks, spaces, and question mark, that's 18 characters. This isn't just about text editing, far from it. For a lot of string processing, indexing into the underlying cod
102.
by raiph 7y ago
Per wikipedia, "the smallest unit of a writing system of any given language" is a grapheme. Note that this has nothing to do with Unicode. It's just the nature of human text. English folk typically use the word "characte
103.
by raiph 7y ago
You're right to the degree that people probably aren't using P6. :)
104.
by raiph 7y ago
Doing it with just one emoji sort of misses the point... One way in P6, combining the full family into one character: my \test = "test\c[Woman,ZWJ,Woman,ZWJ,Girl,ZWJ,Boy]"; say test.chars; # 5 say test; # test
105.
by raiph 7y ago
Are you sure UTF8-C8[1] doesn't cover this use case? [1] https://docs.perl6.org/language/unicode#UTF8-C8
106.
by raiph 8y ago
Thanks for replying. > Someone can really like a languages, but not agree with all the language designer's choices. Yes, of course. When writing about `+`, Guido might have chosen to gently chide himself for deciding to break the ve
107.
by raiph 8y ago
Forgive me as I use similarly extreme language. I 100% disagree. Imo Guido's throwaway comment uses the same rhetorical form as hate speech. Your use of "100% agree" and "I actually really like Perl" are mutually co
108.
by raiph 8y ago
> I'll admit that I'm a bit phased by P6 phasers :) .oO ( a pun set to stun? ) > ENTER and LEAVE ... like Python's __enter__ and __exit__ Aiui their primary usage involves similar use-cases and sugar. The common aspect
109.
by raiph 8y ago
> Everything you wrote seems fine to me and you even expounded on what I wrote! Given that your reply was just the right sort of clear answer that would make up for my original footnote I was especially happy to riff off your answer and
110.
by raiph 8y ago
I noticed that error too but decided I didn't have the energy to provide a response worthy of the situation. I'm so glad I didn't try. As always you've provided a helpful answer and I learned something new. I hadn't
111.
by raiph 8y ago
> The lack of maybe or nullable types in perl6 P6 supports something more powerful and uses that instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_union In P6 the symbol Int, when treated as a type by the compiler, deno
112.
by raiph 8y ago
You're welcome. Here's another quick example. It may or may not touch on your or the GGGP's point. So, no need to reply. I just thought I'd post something more while we wait for their reply. say now - INIT now T
113.
by raiph 8y ago
> You're certainly right, but that doesn't change my point that, by just looking at the code, Haskell seems to have the better solutions for the problems. Sure. But that's an inevitable consequence of what the document aim
114.
by raiph 8y ago
> Probably your comment hints to this already Regardless, I'm glad you've written your comment to clarify. :) I'd be delighted to hear about any of the several big or small mistakes I am about to make in the following. Als
115.
by raiph 8y ago
I'm not sure if I've nailed what the GP was speaking of or what you're looking for but anyway I do think the following is illustrative of the linguistic evolution P6 represents. Earlier this year at perlmonks (perhaps the top
116.
by raiph 8y ago
A great Haskeller led to this document being made available. [1] She didn't question whether Haskellers needed something like P6, she just implemented it and pushed Haskell to greater heights. I think that is a worthwhile point. But I
117.
by raiph 8y ago
English contains ambiguous words. What does "contains" mean in the previous sentence? In P6 it means searching a string for a substring. Your code asks P6 to treat @menu as a string. If you want to treat it as a list and grep that
118.
by raiph 8y ago
You have clearly been able to read and translate the GP's code and confidently assert you've written "pretty much the same code". > Do you have a better example where the Perl syntax would shine? Unless you have &quot
119.
by raiph 8y ago
In P6: grammar one-grammar { rule { <some-pattern> <another-grammar> .... } } Can't get simpler. Can't be more readable.
120.
by raiph 8y ago
It's not a comparison. It's not an appetizer for P6 or ways in which P6 comes off better than Haskell. It's not an overview or tutorial for learning P6 if you come from a Haskell background. It's for someone who has alre

More ›