|
|
Jake Hall Attepted a flip in RE
some shit head of a person in my class tempted to do a flip off the table. Mrs Heart was teaching us at the time. She must of been deaf or something not to heard him haha lmao.
hope you have a laugh?
x
Author: AshleighGilberto
Keywords: Jake Hall Flip RE Funny 8TG2 Castle Comunity College 2008
Added: December 1, 2008
more
Neighbours 5596 Part C: Mon 1st December
In order to feel free again, Bridget runs away from home and travels to a favourite childhood place. On the way she bumps into a group of backpackers who ask her if she wants to come along for the ride. Tempted by their carefree lifestyle, she jumps aboard their Combi Van and lives the dream for a little while. Until the backpackers steal her wallet and bag, and leave her stranded and alone.
Having postponed the wedding, Libby and Dan decide to take their honeymoon trip after all. However, Sam puts a spanner in the works when she asks Dan to come along to her ultrasound. When he tells her hes going away, she comes up with a plan to sabotage their trip so he doesnt go at all. When she asks him to go along with her to help her pick up some baby goods, he agrees. Hes got plenty of time until his plane leaves. When his back is turned, Sam turns Dans phone off so that Libby cannot contact him to remind him of the time. Carried away with setting up the babys cot, Dan doesnt realise he's late until they've already missed their flight. Furious, Libby accuses Sam of using the baby to manipulate Dan into doing exactly what she wants.
Lou is worried for Harold, and cant accept Susans suggestion that perhaps Harold needs some time alone. Taking solace in working in the allotment, Lous surprised when the other neighbours arrive to support him. However the question still remains where is Harold?
Author: NeighboursRachel
Keywords: neighbours 5596
Added: December 1, 2008
more
Neighbours 5596 Part B: Mon 1st December
In order to feel free again, Bridget runs away from home and travels to a favourite childhood place. On the way she bumps into a group of backpackers who ask her if she wants to come along for the ride. Tempted by their carefree lifestyle, she jumps aboard their Combi Van and lives the dream for a little while. Until the backpackers steal her wallet and bag, and leave her stranded and alone.
Having postponed the wedding, Libby and Dan decide to take their honeymoon trip after all. However, Sam puts a spanner in the works when she asks Dan to come along to her ultrasound. When he tells her hes going away, she comes up with a plan to sabotage their trip so he doesnt go at all. When she asks him to go along with her to help her pick up some baby goods, he agrees. Hes got plenty of time until his plane leaves. When his back is turned, Sam turns Dans phone off so that Libby cannot contact him to remind him of the time. Carried away with setting up the babys cot, Dan doesnt realise he's late until they've already missed their flight. Furious, Libby accuses Sam of using the baby to manipulate Dan into doing exactly what she wants.
Lou is worried for Harold, and cant accept Susans suggestion that perhaps Harold needs some time alone. Taking solace in working in the allotment, Lous surprised when the other neighbours arrive to support him. However the question still remains where is Harold?
Author: NeighboursRachel
Keywords: neighbours 5596
Added: December 1, 2008
more
Neighbours 5596 Part A: Mon 1st December
In order to feel free again, Bridget runs away from home and travels to a favourite childhood place. On the way she bumps into a group of backpackers who ask her if she wants to come along for the ride. Tempted by their carefree lifestyle, she jumps aboard their Combi Van and lives the dream for a little while. Until the backpackers steal her wallet and bag, and leave her stranded and alone.
Having postponed the wedding, Libby and Dan decide to take their honeymoon trip after all. However, Sam puts a spanner in the works when she asks Dan to come along to her ultrasound. When he tells her hes going away, she comes up with a plan to sabotage their trip so he doesnt go at all. When she asks him to go along with her to help her pick up some baby goods, he agrees. Hes got plenty of time until his plane leaves. When his back is turned, Sam turns Dans phone off so that Libby cannot contact him to remind him of the time. Carried away with setting up the babys cot, Dan doesnt realise he's late until they've already missed their flight. Furious, Libby accuses Sam of using the baby to manipulate Dan into doing exactly what she wants.
Lou is worried for Harold, and cant accept Susans suggestion that perhaps Harold needs some time alone. Taking solace in working in the allotment, Lous surprised when the other neighbours arrive to support him. However the question still remains where is Harold?
Author: NeighboursRachel
Keywords: neighbours 5596
Added: December 1, 2008
more
p6apclps #74 Perl 6 Apocalypse
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6 - - that's really an array. In fact, "@array =~ / regex/" could conceivably be matching against a set of infinite strings in parallel, though that seems a bit scary. [Update: The "=~" operator is renamed "~~", and it doesn't automatically "any-fy" an array anymore, so we could pretty easily make it work over an entire array as if it were a string.] Even if we don't care about the boundaries between array elements, this approach gives us the ability to read a file in chunks and not worry that the pattern won't match because it happens to span a boundary. It might be objected that matching against a subroutine rather than an infinite string or array has the benefit of not promising to keep around the entire string or array in memory. But this is not really a feature, since in general a regex can potentially backtrack all the way to the beginning of the string. And there's nothing to say that the front of the infinite string or array has to stay around anyway. Whether to throw away the head of a string or array should really depend on the programmer, and I don't think there's a more intuitive way to manage that than to simply let the programmer whack off the front of the string or array using operators like "substr" or "splice", or the new "[cut]" assertion. Indeed, the very existence of the string/ array precludes the caching problem that RFC 316 complains about. The question remains how to declare such a string/array. If we decided to do a magical name identification, we could conceivably declare my $@array; and then both $array and @array refer to the same object, but treated as a string when you say $array and as an array when you say "@array)". One is tempted to set up the input routine by saying my $@array is from { [$input] }; Additional lines (or chunks) would then come from the "[$input]" iterator. But really, the infinite nature of the array is a feature of the underlying object, not the variable. After all, we want to be able to say @array := 1..Inf; even with an ordinary array. So we could even make this work: my $@array := [$input]; But I think we need to break the aliasing down, which will give us more flexibility at the expense of more verbiage: my @array := [$input]; # @array now bound to iterator my $array is ArrayString(@array); # an ordinary tie That would let us do cool and/or sick things like this: my @lines := [$article]; my $_ is ArrayString(@lines); s/^ .*? \n[2,] //; # delete header from $_ AND @lines! for @lines { ... } # process remaining lines The "for" loop potentially runs forever, since @lines is implicitly extended from an iterator. The array is automatically extended on the end, but it's not automatically shifted on the front. So if you really did want the loop to run forever without exhausting memory, you'd need to say something like: substr($_, 0, $_.pos, ""); The same effect can be effected within a regex by asserting "[cut]", which makes the current position the new string beginning. (If you backtrack over "[cut]", the entire match will fail.) [Update: Now we can just say "[@lines ~~ s/^.*? \n**{2...} //"].] RFC 110: counting matches I think we can avoid using any options if we make a pattern count matches when used in a numeric context. If in doubt, make it explicit: $count = +/foo/; If it turns out we do need an option, it'll probably be ":n". [Update: That would be "+m:g/foo/" these days.] RFC 112: Assignment within a regex This RFC is basically covered by the "$foo: =(...)" notation, plus variations. The RFC claims that such assignments are not done till the end, except that they are done ahead of closures. I'd rather state it the other way around: it always appears that the current hypothetical binding is assigned if you check, but as long as the optimizer can determine that you aren't looking, it doesn't have to keep up appearances. Contrariwise, if $foo is just a fancy way of saying $1, there may in fact be no more overhead in maintaining $foo than $1. Either is really just pointing into a table of offsets into the string. That's assuming we get the scoping right on hypothetical variables. Some excerpts from the RFC: *The camel and the docs include this example: * if (/Time: (..):(..):(..)/) { $hours = $1; $minutes = $2; $seconds = $3; } *This then becomes:* /Time: (?$hours=..):(?$minutes=..): (?$seconds=..)/ Now that looks like this:
Author: h4ck3rm1k3
Keywords: perl perl6 larry wall Apocalypse
Added: December 1, 2008
more
p6apclps #69 Perl 6 Apocalypse
http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6 - - value in any of several ways.] As a kind of iterator, a regex stored in a variable doesn't expand in list context unless you put angles around it or use it with "m/ /": $rx = /(xxx)/; print 1,2,[$rx($_)]; print 1,2,[/(xxx)/]; my &rx := /(xxx)/; print 1,2,[rx($_)]; $0, $1, etc. are not set in iterated cases like this. Each list item is a result object, though, and you can still get at the internal values that way. Hypothetical Variables, er Values Values that are determined within a regular expression should usually be viewed as speculative, subject to cancellation if backtracking occurs. This applies not only to the values captured by "(...)" within the regex, but also to values determined within closures embedded in the regex. The scope of these values is rather strange, compared to ordinary variables. They are dynamically scoped, but not like "temp" variables. A temporary variable is restored at the end of the current block. A hypothetical variable keeps its value after the current block exits, and in fact keeps that value clear to the end of its natural lifetime if the regex succeeds (where the natural lifetime depends on where it's declared). But if failure causes backtracking over where the variable was set, then it is restored to its previous state. Perl 5 actually coerced the "local" operator into supporting this behavior, but that was a mistake. In Perl 6 "temp" will keep consistent semantics, and restore values on exit from the current block. A new word, "let", will indicate the desire to set a variable to a hypothetical value. (I was tempted to use "suppose", but "let" is shorter, and tends to mean the same thing, at least to mathematicians.) my $x; / (\S*) { let $x = .pos } \s* foo / After this pattern, $x will be set to the ending position of $1--but only if the pattern succeeds. If it fails, $x is restored to "undef" when the closure is backtracked. It's possible to do things in a closure that the regex engine doesn't know how to backtrack, of course, but a hypothetical value doesn't fall into that category. For things that do fall into that category, perhaps we need to define a "BACK" block that is like "UNDO", but scoped to backtracking. Sometimes we'll talk about declaring a hypothetical variable, but as with "temp" variables, we're not actually declaring the variable itself, but the dynamic scope of its new value. In Perl 6, you can in fact say: my $x = 0; ... { temp $x = 1; # temporizes the lexical variable ... } # $x restored to 0 (This is primarily useful for dynamically scoping a file-scoped lexical, which is slightly safer than temporizing a package variable since nobody can see it outside the file.) You may declare a hypothetical variable only when the topic is a regex state. This is not as much of a hardship as it might seem. Suppose your closure calls out to some other routine, and passes the regex state as an argument, $rx_ state. It suffices to say: given $rx_state { let $x = .pos } [Update: This restriction is no longer in effect. Any variable may be treated hypothetically, not just variables stored in $/. The capture variables in $/ are now syntactically distinguished from ordinary variables. Hypotheticality is orthogonal to that, except insofar as $/ is somewhat hypothetical as a whole.] As it happens, $1 and friends are all simply hypothetical variables. When we say "hypothetical variable", we aren't speaking of where the variable is stored, but rather how its contents are treated dynamically. If a regex sets a hypothetical variable that was declared with either "my" or "our" beforehand, then the regex modifies that lexical or package variable, and "let" is purely a run-time operation. On the other hand, if the variable is not pre-declared, it's actually stored in the regex state object. In this case, the "let" also serves to declare the variable as lexically scoped to the rest of the regex, in addition to its run-time action. Such a variable is not directly visible outside the regex, but you can get at it through the $0 object (always presuming the match succeeded). For a regex variable named $maybe, its external name is "$0._var_{'maybe'}". The $0 object can behave as a hash, so $0{maybe} is the short way to say that. [Update: Nowadays the short name of that variable is "$[maybe]". And the match variable is named $/ instead of $0.] All other variable names are stored with their sigil, so the external name for @maybe is
Author: h4ck3rm1k3
Keywords: perl perl6 larry wall Apocalypse
Added: December 1, 2008
more
|
|
|
