Hailo

 view release on metacpan or  search on metacpan

t/lib/Hailo/Test/TimToady.trn  view on Meta::CPAN

to2: I'd expect it to do much the same as +(Any), which is to say,
probably throw an exception.
which certainly falls under the rubric of "Whatever
"
In general the * prefix just means "splat something in here that is not directly specified"
I don't think anyone can look at 0..* and not grok it.
s/anyone/anyone not seriously damaged by earlier exposure to computer culture. :)/
Make me one with *..*
In a selector when you're too lazy to say Num.
that's another reason for it.  'a'..*
the endpoint is *not* Inf.
It's...its...er...
Whatever.
Sorry, I already called the colon.
Whatever...
right.
"Whatever" xx *
It googles for Whatever and starts replicated the I-feel-lucky page
s/ted/ting/
was just wondering about XXishness
not to have it.

t/lib/Hailo/Test/TimToady.trn  view on Meta::CPAN

so $a ~~ 1 | 2 | 3
can quit as soon as it finds any match.
no
it can quit as soon as it finds two matches. :)
if 'x' ~~ any(@foo) { say } can quit on one match
as can all(@foo) if it's false
or none(@foo) if it's true
nothing like that
well, that's exactly what $0 is...
I doubt .. would know what to do with StrPos, but StrPos might figure out what to do with ..
and .. could exclude the endpoints. :)
I once had a font with square periods...
i wasn't making fun of your bad English
I was making a pun.
I do that sometimes...
unfortunately...
Fortunately, time is kinda uniform (to the first approximation),  Unfortunately, string lengths have multipathing problems.
but it certainly the case that we should prefer APIs that deal with the strings themselves rather than indirectly referring to them via their locations
Well, and byte boundaries are likely to be the internal form a StrPos in many cases.
but you might have a pos in a string that doesn't even *have* bytes.
espcially now that we can do things like @foo ~~ /stuff/

t/lib/Hailo/Test/TimToady.trn  view on Meta::CPAN

which means that particular usage should probably die
no, it collides--I've been putting "is context" on parameters to turn them into environmental vars
and the fact that the "is context(Scalar)" section has a big disclaimer at the bottom that it doesn't work half the time...
is another strike against it
should probably just be relegated to special macro processing anyway.
since it's something that has to be known at compile time.
so I'm just going to delete it.
putter: note in my message I'm thinking about changing it to lazy flattening undoable by @@
you can ignore the symbol stuff in S05, it's already obsolete
in fact, I just now deleted it
Range.max just returns the endpoint, ignoring :by
so pugs is correct
Schwern++
the "Perl 7" discussion, I think
not to mention the strange regex ideas
There's little wrong with Perl 5 today that wasn't already wrong in 2000 when 361 RFCs were written...
I think of them more as macros than methods
WHICH is more likely to call stringify or some such
depends on the MOP I think what the meaning of object identity is
[particle]: you mean on .max?
[particle]: I'll need to think about that

t/lib/Hailo/Test/TimToady.trn  view on Meta::CPAN

STD implements the setting as an outer lexical scope, though rakudo hasn't got there yet
colomon: um, spec tests shouldn't be using implementation dependent features such as pir::
colomon: that's fine, it just needs to go at some point
Str.succ is not intended to produce values in lexicographic order, which is relatively useless in real life.  So we steal .succ (and ++) for "counting with carry" in customary ranges
but see S03:431 and following
actually, that section implies that .succ is not used for ++ on strings, hmm...
that's specced, though
see S03:2029
why would you want to in increment kana?
it's not like the codepoints follow the a,i,u,e,o song...  :)
you can still use it as a Range, as in testing cmp its endpoints
but cmp has nothing to do with .succ, really
yes, and then if you do something non-sensical, you get a lot of nonsense :)
the test is supposed to be !after, which matches eqv
or the other way around
anyway, a direct hit is suppose to stop it
if you increment Z, yes
but not if you use 'after'
S03:2051 is talking about you, the Astute Reader
oh wait, my lines are off, hang on
that may take a while to propagate through