|
This channel is intended for people just starting with the Raku Programming Language (raku.org). Logs are available at irclogs.raku.org/raku-beginner/live.html Set by lizmat on 8 June 2022. |
|||
|
00:28
deoac joined
|
|||
| deoac | Why is `(1, 1).one !(elem) (1..10);` True? | 00:29 | |
| It is not the case that exactly one of the elements is not in the Range. | |||
| `all`, `any`, and `none` behave the way I expect. | 00:30 | ||
| Whereas `(1, 1).any ∉ (1..10)` is `any(False, False)` | 00:36 | ||
| Shouldn't `!(elem)` and `∉` yield the same result? | |||
| Ooops. Replace `any` with `one` in my last remark. | 00:37 | ||
|
00:55
frost joined
02:00
razetime joined
02:46
jetchisel left
02:49
jetchisel joined
03:30
razetime left
03:56
razetime joined
|
|||
| kjp | deoac: Ideally yes, but... 'A !(elem) B' is shorthand for "!(A (elem) B)", and | 04:28 | |
| ∉ is an operator in its own right, so the results are different. | 04:29 | ||
| '!∈' gives the same result as '!(elem)' | 04:34 | ||
| This is a known gotcha when using junctions. | 04:35 | ||
|
05:15
frost left
07:02
jetchisel left
08:18
razetime left
08:35
razetime joined
10:02
discord-raku-bot left
10:03
discord-raku-bot joined
10:07
discord-raku-bot left,
discord-raku-bot joined
|
|||
| deoac | Is there an ASCII equivalent of `∉` ? | 10:16 | |
| lizmat | !(elem) | 10:17 | |
| deoac | No. `(1, 1).one !(elem) (1..10);` and `(1, 1).one ∉ (1..10)` yield different results. | 10:20 | |
| lizmat | then according current doctrine, the ∉ result is wrong | 10:21 | |
| deoac | `(1, 1).one ∉ (1..10);` -->. `one(False, False)` | 10:23 | |
| `(1, 1).one !(elem) (1..10);` -->. `True` | 10:24 | ||
| lizmat | see discussion at: github.com/rakudo/rakudo/pull/3874 | 10:25 | |
| Nemokosch | just posted on github.com/Raku/problem-solving/issues/319 | 10:27 | |
| tldr please please pretty please, do make the change lizmat PR'd back in the day | |||
| (and perhaps change the whole semantics of `!` but that seems too big to happen) | 10:28 | ||
| I mean: | 10:32 | ||
| - changing `!` to _not_ lift would fix everything immediately | |||
| - if that doesn't happen, providing ways out that aren't just ![operator] is necessary to get readable junction behavior | |||
| lizmat | I'm going to recuse myself from this dicussion | ||
| on ground of burnout on the subject | 10:33 | ||
| Nemokosch | It's not your fault really | 10:34 | |
| It's painful to see that this discussion would be over for good if it weren't for the stubbornness of literally two or three people | 10:36 | ||
| lizmat | that may be so, but these people I value very much, and I feel it is *my* fault for not having been able to convince them | 10:37 | |
| gfldex | m: say „If only Larry wouldn't be { ('linguist' & 'computer scientist') }!“; | 10:39 | |
| camelia | all(If only Larry wouldn't be linguist!, If only Larry wouldn't be computer scientist!) | ||
| deoac | Thanks, everyone. This has been illuminating to this beginner! | 10:42 | |
| Nemokosch | But since I see this bothers everyone apart from the 2 or 3 people who insist on it, I will even write a petition with pages of rationale, if I have to | 10:44 | |
|
11:00
jetchisel joined
11:19
razetime left
11:26
razetime joined
13:41
jgaz joined
13:52
jgaz left
13:54
jgaz joined
14:27
jgaz left
14:30
razetime left
15:01
jgaz joined
16:24
jgaz left,
deoac left
16:28
jgaz joined
16:59
jgaz left
22:29
deoac joined
22:42
Kaipei joined
22:46
Kaiepi left
|
|||
| deoac | Is there a rakuish way of toggling a Bool? | 23:29 | |
| Apart from `$bool = !$bool;` ? | 23:30 | ||