Re^40: Why is the execution order of subexpressions undefined? (magic ruts)

Thanks for taking the time, sorry it got so verbose. It really did start out as a simple question.

I completely agree with your categorisation and accept that nothing is yet fixed in stone. I think that I have remembered to say that it isn't yet clear whether Perl 6 would need defined EO in order for those parts of the syntax and semantics that are already fairly well described. I think that at least some of them will, but that's just my speculation.

I do have one question. Isn't it the case that any non-serialising, binary operator can be converted into a parallel operator using the hyper-thingies >>op<<?

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco.

Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?

Comment on Re^40: Why is the execution order of subexpressions undefined? (magic ruts) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^41: Why is the execution order of subexpressions undefined? (magic ruts) by TimToady (Parson) on Apr 17, 2005 at 00:59 UTC
Yes, and with both hyperops and with junctions, you are implicitly promising that the parallel branches either A) don't have side effects, or that if they do, B) you don't think the side effects will interact, or C) the side effects are idempotent so it doesn't matter in which order they happen, or D) you just don't give a rip.	[reply]
Re^42: perlmonks nesting record? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 18, 2005 at 02:22 UTC
This almost looks like it might be a new record for thread nesting depth at perlmonks. Anyone know of a deeper one?	[reply]
Re^43: perlmonks nesting record? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 18, 2005 at 03:08 UTC
Yeah, this node ;)	[reply]