Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

By all means.

    my @fib := ...;
Bind something to an array variable. Assignment tends to follow infinite lists into the abyss. (But would also work, in this case, since the list is lazily evaluated.)

    1, 2, *+* ...^ * >= 100;
This is all governed by the `...^` in the middle, which is a lazy list generator. Three components, the seed, the iteration and the end condition, surround it. (Those three are much like a C `for` loop, come to think of it.)

The seed is simply `1, 2`.

The iteration is star-plus-star (which I can't figure out how to write out explicitly in this markup). This is ultimately syntactic sugar for a lambda with two parameters: `-> $a, $b { $a + $b }`. Or, put differently, this is a curried addition function.

The end condition is `* >= 100`. Also curried; we could desugar it as either `-> $c { $c >= 100 }` or simply `{ $_ >= 100}`. It's a block that takes one argument and checks whether it's 100 or greater.

The sequence operator `...^` has a little hat on it, meaning we're to discard the item that eventually matches the end condition. This is congruent with the fact that there is a range operator `..^` (note: two dots) which excludes its right endpoint.




Thanks for breaking that down, it's all, uh, a little terse.

The ..^ operator (including the right endpoint?) doesn't do what I was expecting:

  > 1, 2, * + * ..^ * >= 100;
  1 2 _block298
Also, this seems a little unfortunate:

  > 1, * + * ...^ * >= 100;
  ===SORRY!===
  Method 'Bridge' not found for invocant of class 'Failure'
(I was expecting some warning about the closure expecting two arguments, and only getting one.)


Frankly, so was I. I'll get back to you on that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: