| lucs | Here's an example: gist.github.com/lucs/c6d470d030bc8...4dfe0f6c96 | 02:24 | |
| Going through the docs looking for something else, I found that having `--human > F` will produce the same as `--output-file=F` (the same as seen in the terminal when neither of those options is used). | 06:14 | ||
| And looking at the details of what `--human` does, I think I understand the why and how of the differences I was seeing. | 06:30 | ||
| Yay! :-) | |||
|
06:57
wayland joined
10:27
[Coke] left
10:29
[Coke] joined
13:10
ChanServ sets mode: +o lizmat
|
|||
| [Coke] | would be nice if the help gave an example of a callable for --dir | 15:22 | |
| I got an error message that --ignore-dir in rak is --dir, tried that directly, no love. | |||
| (read the help to find it's a Callable) | |||
| ah, the deny above is helpful. so rak --dir='* ne "ignored_dir"' ... | 15:24 | ||
| shouldn't rak --dir=1 "thing" search recursively? | 15:29 | ||
| (also tried --dir=True) | |||
| lizmat | trying to recollect atm | 15:34 | |
| [Coke] | I'm not blocked or anything, now down to curiosity | 15:35 | |
| lizmat | Specifying --dir as a flag will include | 15:37 | |
| *all* subdirectories, while specifying --/dir (or --not-dir) will | |||
| cause no recursion to happen whatsoever | |||
| --dir=1 is not as a flag | 15:38 | ||
| [Coke] | why is --dir=1 not a callable like --dir='*ne"skip-this"' ? | 15:39 | |
| lizmat | good question, I would have to spelunk | 15:40 | |
| please make an issue :-) | |||
| [Coke] | also --/dir=skip-dir doesn't recurse. | ||
| it only does the current dir | 15:41 | ||
| sure, opening issue. | |||
| done. | 15:42 | ||
|
17:29
lizmat sets mode: +b *!~Nemokosch@2a02:ab88:388f:5100:3f10:8b08:ff1c:706
17:55
lizmat sets mode: +b TheUnforgiven!*@*
|
|||
| lucs | Does App::Rak have a convenient API I can use in a Raku program, or am I better off just shelling (or "proc'ing") out to `rak` and collect the output? | 19:15 | |
| lizmat | lucs: App::Rak is actually a frontend for raku.land/zef:lizmat/rak | 19:16 | |
| [Coke] | raku.land/zef:lizmat/rak | ||
| lizmat | yes, it has quite a number of arguments :-) | 19:17 | |
| lucs | Um, yeah, I know that! :-) | ||
| What I mean is, where could I go from here: `raku -e 'use App::Rak; ⋯` to invoke rak and grab its output in the program? | 19:21 | ||
| [Coke] | you'd start with raku -Mrak -e'...', I think | ||
| don't use the front end as the module, use the low level, I would think | 19:22 | ||
| lizmat | use rak; my $rak = rak / foo /, :file(/ \.txt $/); for $rak.result { .... | ||
| lucs | Oh, plain `rak` there? Hmm... | ||
| lizmat | yeah, the "rak" module is the engine, really | ||
| lucs | Ah, I see. | ||
| lizmat | App::Rak does a bit of pre- and postprocessing | ||
| lucs | lizmat: That example you showed will get me started. Thanks. | 19:23 | |
| lizmat | just a copy/paste from raku.land/zef:lizmat/rak :-) | ||
| lucs | Hehe! | 19:24 | |
| Yeah, sorry, I hadn't looked at what you and [Coke] linked to: I was fixated on App::Rak being the correct place. | 19:25 | ||
| lizmat | it happens :-) | ||
|
19:48
lizmat sets mode: +b Nemokosch!*@*
|
|||
| lucs | (General Raku question, I suppose, follows, but asking here anyway.) | 20:41 | |
| Looking at `app.rakumod` from the `rak.git` repo, why are all subroutines declared with `my sub ⋯`? | |||
| Er, meant `rak.rakumod`, sorry. | 20:43 | ||
| Aren't all those top-level subs already scoped to the containing file? | 20:49 | ||
| (limited scope, that is) | |||
| Can a file's top-level `sub ⋯` be somehow reached from outside the file? | 20:50 | ||
| [Coke] | look at the last paragraph here: docs.raku.org/syntax/my | 21:12 | |
| docs.raku.org/language/variables#T...declarator slightly better URL | |||
|
21:37
wayland left
|
|||
| lucs | Hmm... In the `class Foo { my class Implem... ` example, I understand how the inner class becomes inaccessible to users of class Foo. | 21:41 | |
| But (just now seeing) a bit higher it mentions that "`my` is the default scope for subroutines, so `my sub x() {}` and `sub x() {}` do exactly the same thing.", maybe those `my sub ⋯` in the code aren't really doing anything? | 21:42 | ||
| [Coke] | just being explicit, as far as I know. | 21:50 | |
| lucs | Okay, nothing wrong with that, eh. | 21:52 | |
| Another thing I noticed is that the code uses variable bindings much more often than assignments. | 22:02 | ||
| It had never occured to me to think about which to use in my code, I'm just used to assignments. | |||
| But seeing that code, it makes me think that when binding is appropriate, it probably saves some runtime (minuscule and perhaps negligible most of the time), but it expresses a kind of "logical" economy that I like. | |||
| Binding, here I come! | 22:03 | ||