guifa I don't think the ecosystem has enough stuff to have developed strong naming patterns — codesections and I were actually discussion the naming question on Grammars and Actions and there's nothing rremotely near universal consensus there on their names or the names of the modules that contain them. 00:09
01:03 frost joined 03:05 frost left 03:15 frost joined 04:06 frost left
Jaguart If I ``zef list --installed`` I see ALL versions of installed upgraded distributions - is this expected? e.g. ``zef upgrade`` and list --installed shows ``JSON::Fast:ver<0.16>`` and ``JSON::Fast:ver<0.17>:auth<cpan:TIMOTIMO>`` 05:26
06:10 Guest1838 left 07:14 ccntrq joined 07:33 jdv joined
jdv jaguart: makes sense as one can use multiple versions of a dist 07:35
Jaguart oops - so which one am I using in my code then? 07:36
when no version is specified
jdv iirc the highest ver 07:37
Jaguart yeah I guess that makes sense... maybe there is a --replace option on ``zef upgrade`` - will check 07:39
hmm - nothing obvious
jaguart m: use Hash::Ordered; my %h is Hash::Ordered = ( a => 1, b => 2, c => 3 ); 07:45
camelia ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <tmp>
Could not find Hash::Ordered in:
jaguart I know that ``use Hash::Ordered; my %h is Hash::Ordered = ( a => 1, b => 2, c => 3 );`` works, and %h is an ordered Hash 07:46
What is the 'is Hash::Ordered syntax when there is no `my`, e.g. when its embedded inside another hash, like my $x = %( a => %( a => 1, b => 2, ) is Hash::Ordered, ) 07:47
jdv there might be an uninstall... 07:58
if you really want to know what the ver of a module is you can get it it seems 08:00
m: use JSON::Fast; JSON::Fast.^ver; 08:01
camelia ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling <tmp>
Could not find JSON::Fast in:
08:01 dakkar joined
jdv basically the same thing - the "is $class" instances you mentioned 08:10
well, if they both worked. the 2nd instance isn't valid. 08:18
08:20 frost joined 09:30 frost left 11:04 dakkar left 11:06 frost joined 13:26 ccntrq left
guifa jaguart: I don't think that there is. %( ) is basically syntactical sugar for 14:09
so you could say…) 14:10
14:12 frost left
guifa If you're going to do it a lot though 14:14
multi sub circumfix:<%O( )> (@p) { @p } 14:15
then you can say my $foo = %O( … ); 14:16
Nemokosch is the % sigil naturally unordered? 14:32
guifa There's a couple of things going on. 14:43
the % sigil on a variable just means "does Associative", but by default when declared will create a Hash (e.g. my %foo; %foo will be a Hash), and Hashes are unordered 14:45
the %( … ) is actually a combination of two separate operators. The first is the list operator ( … ), and then the % prefix operator which says "treat this as a Hash" (I think technically it's not an operator, but a contextualizer, and it calls `.hash` on the thing it's applied to. So %(foo) is the same as, which is the same as 14:47
15:39 ismustachio joined 15:56 ismustachio left 16:27 ismustachio joined 16:34 ismustachio left 16:56 ismustachio joined 20:57 TempIRCLogger joined 21:16 discord-raku-bot left, discord-raku-bot joined 21:40 ismustachio left 21:55 ismustachio joined 22:24 ismustachio left 22:49 ismustachio joined 22:55 ismustachio left 23:09 ismustachio joined
Jaguart @guifa++ thank you 🙂 23:13
23:13 Dikkemeijer joined 23:14 ismustachio left, Dikkemeijer left
I will try this later - Hash::Ordered is a role... 23:14
23:37 ocomport joined