use Perl

• Re: Idiomatic Perl 6 (Score:1)

  by daxim (8218)

  Wrong Rosettacode link, it should point to http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle#Perl_6 [rosettacode.org].
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by masak (6289)

    Fixed, thanks.
• Fugly! (Score:1)

  by soulchild (8747)

  You seriously consider this "idiomatic" solution more elegant? If that is what idiomatic Perl 6 looks like, it will never take off ... Sorry, but that is as unreadable as it could possibly get and just fuels the unstoppable line-noise argument even more. Good languages _can_ be descriptive, self-documenting and to a degree self-explanatory. I always thought that one of Perl's philosophies was to be more like a human language. Guess I was wrong, it's math after all ...
  • Re: (Score:2)

    by pmichaud (6013)

    I always thought that one of Perl's philosophies was to be more like a human language. Guess I was wrong, it's math after all ...

    In some sense, I think it's entirely appropriate that solving a problem from (arguably) a mathematical domain ends up with a solution that looks mathematical. Just because this particular problem ends up with a mathematical-looking answer in Perl 6 doesn't mean that all Perl 6 programs will look like mathematics. Answers to problems in other domains will tend to look like the
• Synthetic code (Score:1)

  by pstuifzand (8790)

  It's nice to see that Perl6 will be on par with Haskell for these kinds of examples. This Haskell example is from Rosseta code page (but rewritten for similarity).

  pascal = iterate (\row -> zipWith (+) ([0]++row) (row++[0])) [1]

  The essential complexity of this example is the same. Only it contains more words than operators.
• 'do' required? (Score:2)

  by pmichaud (6013)

  my @pascal := do [1], -> @p { [0, @p Z+ @p, 0] } ... *;
  ...

  (The extra do required because of a shortcoming in Rakudo.)

  FWIW, I think parentheses will work here also.

  my @pascal := ([1], -> @p { [0, @p Z+ @p, 0] } ... *);

  Pm
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by masak (6289)

    Aye. I considered both forms, and went with the do form.

    When binding has list precedence, neither parentheses nor the do will be needed.
• Nifty! (Score:2)

  by Ovid (2709)

  I really like this. I liked it even more as I worked through all of the examples to better understand them. One thing I would change:

  say $_.perl for @pascal;

  The output is much clearer that way (at least to me). I actually tried to get it a touch more "triangly":

  my @pascal := do [1], -> @p { [0,@p Z+ @p,0] } ... *;
  say ' ' x 2 * (10 - $_.elems), $_.perl for @pascal[^10];

  But wound up with this:

                    [1]
             
  • Re: (Score:1)

    by masak (6289)

    my $n = 10;
my @pascal := do [1], -> @p { [0,@p Z+ @p,0] } ... *;
my $m = @pascal[$n - 1].perl.chars;
say (my $r = $_.perl).fmt("%{($m + $r.chars) div 2}s") for @pascal[^$n];

    Produces this:

                     [1]
                [1, 1]
              [1, 2, 1]