Re: Revisiting .chars (and friends) in list context
On 6/3/05, Joshua Gatcomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I would like to be able to do is: my $str = 'hello'; my @chars = $str.chars; # h e l l o I can't see this being a problem at all. For starters, the whole what is a character issue is just as relevant to +($foo.chars) as it is to list($foo.chars). Secondly, the use bytes/codes/graphs/langs pragmata should be sufficient to define what a character is in any dynamic context. The whole should we decompose ligatures? question (raised in the earlier thread) can be answered by the appropriate use langs. And finally, it should be easy enough to do the efficient thing in scalar context. Stuart
Idea for making @, %, $ optional
I have thought of an interesting idea that may allow Perl 6 to make the
$, @, and % optional on many uses of variables. This involves simply
extending the function namespace to include all kinds of structures, and
thus the function namespace does not require symbols, they are optional.
The intention here is not to eliminate $, @, % and friends, just make
them optional! I believe people should be able to make the choice as to
which way to do things, we should give the programmer as much freedom
and as any many ways to do things as possible, not constrain them but
empower and free them from restrictions.
Also, a goal I have tried to follow here is to implement this feature
without affecting the existing usage grammar and rules of the Perl 6
language at all. This is a good goal i believe, my intention is just for
this to be an additional extension to Perl 6, not change its existing
grammar and parsing rules at all, just expand upon it. Perl 6 is a great
language and I like what has done so far. This is not an attempt to
change what has already been defined, but rather provide an additional
usage.
These are just some initial ideas, they may be able to be improved upon,
or benefit from refinement.
**Subroutines
sub hello {
print hello!\n;
}
#**Arrays
#Define
array hello=(1, 2, 3);
#in Array context:
@array=array; #or
@array=array array;
#in Scalar context:
$element=array[1]; #or
$element=scalar array[1];
#**Hashs
#Define
hash hash1=(hello=hello1, hello2=hello2);
#In hash context=
%hash2=hash1; # or
%hash2=hash hash1;
#scalar context
$hello=hash{hello}; # or
$hello=scalar hello{hello};
#**Scalars
#Define
scalar hello=hello;
#Scalar context
$hello=hello; # or
$hello=scalar hello;
#**References
#Make reference
scalar ref=\hash; #or
scalar ref=mkref hash; #or
scalar ref=mkref hash hash;
#Dereference:
#Every ampersand after the initial one attempts to deference the
# one level of referncing:
%hash=ref;
# THis would unwrap a reference in a reference
%hash=ref;
# Dereference a reference in a hash
%hash=hash{ref};
#or
# A deref keyword for convenience:
%hash=deref ref; #or
%hash=hash scalar ref; #or
%hash=hash hash ref;
This is just an initial sketch, it may need or benefit from refinement.
[PATCH] Fix 3 of the spawnw.t failures.
Further thoughts on the questions in comments invited. njs win32-exec.c.patch Description: Binary data
using rules
Hi,
I'm working on a web templating system, and I'm wondering how should I use
rules?
I have these defs:
rule elem {
\ wts \: ([a..z]+) \/ \
}
rule block {
\ wts \: ([a..z]+)\(.*?)\ \/ wts \: $1 \
}
I would like to execute subroutines during the evaluation. What should I
do? Is the following the right way?
given $template {
s/block/{trigger_block()}/;
s/elem/{trigger_elem()}/;
}
How can I catch the matched elem name, and block content? I'm guessing
that hypotetical variables can be the solution, but it says, that those
variables should have been defined, before I use them, and it's not that
case.
Bye,
Andras
Re: [PATCH] Fix 3 of the spawnw.t failures.
Apologies for the wrong list. Should I resend to the correct one? njs
Re: date and time formatting
localtime() and gmtime() seem fairly core to me. The array contexts are simple, and the scalar context is an RFC valid string. Nothing too heavy there. The time() function is typically only moderately useful without localtime(). This is true if the time() function returns a simple scalar containing seconds since the Unix epoch. If, however, it returned a DateTime object that numified to said value, but provided both localtime() and gmtime() methods (and a whole lot more) ... wouldn't that be better? Rob
Re: [PATCH] Fix 3 of the spawnw.t failures.
Nigel Sandever [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks, applied - r8263 Further thoughts on the questions in comments invited. Yeah. njs leo
Re: Idea for making @, %, $ optional
Millsa Erlas wrote: I have thought of an interesting idea that may allow Perl 6 to make the $, @, and % optional on many uses of variables. This involves simply extending the function namespace to include all kinds of structures, and thus the function namespace does not require symbols, they are optional. Also, a goal I have tried to follow here is to implement this feature without affecting the existing usage grammar and rules of the Perl 6 language at all. This is a good goal i believe, my intention is just for this to be an additional extension to Perl 6, not change its existing grammar and parsing rules at all, just expand upon it. Perl 6 is a great language and I like what has done so far. This is not an attempt to change what has already been defined, but rather provide an additional usage. In that case, you should be looking into how to make it a pragmata, rather then pushing the idea on perl6-language. It shouldn't be too hard -- a matter of using the equivalent of perl5's UNIVERSAL::AUTOLOAD, and the OUTER:: scope. -=- James Mastros, theorbtwo
Re: Idea for making @, %, $ optional
James Mastros wrote: Millsa Erlas wrote: I have thought of an interesting idea that may allow Perl 6 to make the $, @, and % optional on many uses of variables. This involves simply extending the function namespace to include all kinds of structures, and thus the function namespace does not require symbols, they are optional. Also, a goal I have tried to follow here is to implement this feature without affecting the existing usage grammar and rules of the Perl 6 language at all. This is a good goal i believe, my intention is just for this to be an additional extension to Perl 6, not change its existing grammar and parsing rules at all, just expand upon it. Perl 6 is a great language and I like what has done so far. This is not an attempt to change what has already been defined, but rather provide an additional usage. In that case, you should be looking into how to make it a pragmata, rather then pushing the idea on perl6-language. It shouldn't be too hard -- a matter of using the equivalent of perl5's UNIVERSAL::AUTOLOAD, and the OUTER:: scope. -=- James Mastros, theorbtwo Does this allow the grammer rules of the language to be changed so that this could be implemented? How does this work? Making this feature something that could be implemented with a pragma would be a fine idea. Furthermore the idea I have had to
Re: Idea for making @, %, $ optional
--- James Mastros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Millsa Erlas wrote: I have thought of an interesting idea that may allow Perl 6 to make the $, @, and % optional on many uses of variables. This involves simply extending the function namespace to include all kinds of structures, and thus the function namespace does not require symbols, they are optional. [...] In that case, you should be looking into how to make it a pragmata, rather then pushing the idea on perl6-language. It shouldn't be too hard -- a matter of using the equivalent of perl5's UNIVERSAL::AUTOLOAD, and the OUTER:: scope. -=- James Mastros, theorbtwo The fact that this keeps recurring on P6L is pretty indicative, I think, that a lot of people don´t value the ability to have an array, hash, and scalar of the same name quite so much as they regret the need to respecify the types of all variables every time they´re used. If it´s really that simple to do, then I´m willing to bet it´ll be used early and often. Making it a part of ´core´ and in fact planning to migrate perl in the direction of less useless line noise DOES seem to me to be a valid task for -language. =Austin
Re: Idea for making @, %, $ optional
On 6/3/05, Millsa Erlas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this allow the grammer rules of the language to be changed so that
this could be implemented? How does this work?
Yes. In fact, one of the big goals of perl 6 is to allow people to
mutate the grammar of the language.
If you just want scalar sigilless variables, you might do something like this:
grammar Sigilless;
is Perl::Grammar;
rule sigil () { $super := SUPER::sigil
{ $sigil = $supersigi }
| null
{ $sigil = '$' }
}
module sigilless;
sub import () {
SHIFT { use grammar Sigilless }
}
(Where I use SHIFT, which I just learned about from Autrijus, to
execute code in the caller's scope.)
That seems the simplest hypothetical way. I'm not sure how that would
play with the real grammar. We can hope it's that simple, but it will
likely take a bit more work than that.
This pretends that all sigilless variables are scalars, which might be
the best way for sigilless to go anyway given Perl 6's reference
semantics.
Luke
MMD and redefinition
In Perl5, if I do:
sub foo {return 1}
sub foo {return 2}
print foo();
I get a redefinition error, and a '2' on STDOUT. Can I assume this will
be the same in Perl6? i.e. can I write a test for pugs to check this?
Moreover:
sub foo(Num $a) {return 1}
sub foo(Str $a) {return 2}
print foo(1),foo('a');
should have the same effect? Printing 2 twice? I don't expect MMD on
non-multi subs.
--
Dakkar - Mobilis in mobile
GPG public key fingerprint = A071 E618 DD2C 5901 9574
6FE2 40EA 9883 7519 3F88
key id = 0x75193F88
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Idea for making @, %, $ optional
Austin Hastings wrote: --- James Mastros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Millsa Erlas wrote: I have thought of an interesting idea that may allow Perl 6 to make the $, @, and % optional on many uses of variables. This involves simply extending the function namespace to include all kinds of structures, and thus the function namespace does not require symbols, they are optional. [...] In that case, you should be looking into how to make it a pragmata, rather then pushing the idea on perl6-language. It shouldn't be too hard -- a matter of using the equivalent of perl5's UNIVERSAL::AUTOLOAD, and the OUTER:: scope. -=- James Mastros, theorbtwo The fact that this keeps recurring on P6L is pretty indicative, I think, that a lot of people don´t value the ability to have an array, hash, and scalar of the same name quite so much as they regret the need to respecify the types of all variables every time they´re used. If it´s really that simple to do, then I´m willing to bet it´ll be used early and often. Making it a part of ´core´ and in fact planning to migrate perl in the direction of less useless line noise DOES seem to me to be a valid task for -language. =Austin I believe that people should be given the choice as to whether to use $, @, or %, or not.My suggestion was one possible way to achieve making $, @, and % optional, while still allowing their use and not changing the existing perl 6 language. This is could be done by simply allowing hashs and arrays to be defined in the function namespace. The existing seperate array and hash namespaces would also be retatianed with their % and @ usage as well, giving people choice. I want very much to preserve peoples choice as to which way to do things and I do not want this suggestion implemented in a way if it takes away peoples right to use $, @ and %, or impacts Perl 6's existing grammer in other ways. One of the reasons I suggest this idea, is indeed variables are very commonly used in many cases, in a program, and typing the prefix characters in my expierience at times is a bit of annoyance, especially since it requires a trip to the shift key. This is not a big problem with things that are seldom used in a language, but when it applies to something as commonly used as variables, it becomes more significant. Maybe its not a huge thing but it is a bit of annoyance at times to me. It may not be to other people thats why if people want to keep using $, @, And %, they should be able to, and I will still want to use them myself at times. I strongly believe in TIMTOWTDI (There is more than one way to do it), which is one reason I like Perl, is that it gives people freedom, does not restrict them, and gives them flexibility and as many choices as possible to how to best accomplish something. I certianly hope Perl 6 can continue, and even expand this.
(multi)subroutine names
Say I have:
multi sub foo(Array $a,Int $b) {...}
multi sub foo(Hash %a, Int $b) {...}
and I want to (distinctly) wrap each multisub, say for testing, or AOP,
or whatever. How do I get the two different code references? As far as i
can gather from the Apocalipses and Synopses, there should be a way to
express the long name, and use that to get the ref. Is there any
proposed syntax for this? (I ask about syntax because the semantic seems
pretty clear...)
--
Dakkar - Mobilis in mobile
GPG public key fingerprint = A071 E618 DD2C 5901 9574
6FE2 40EA 9883 7519 3F88
key id = 0x75193F88
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (multi)subroutine names
With a meta model for code signatures you could generate a code
signature and then ask it to locate any matching multis.
For a more concrete handle on how this might look if I were king-
wait a while... ;-)
When I have more time to finalize docs/mmd.kwid and then describe
the meta model for function signatures I promise to tell you =)
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 01:20:13 +0200, dakkar wrote:
Say I have:
multi sub foo(Array $a,Int $b) {...}
multi sub foo(Hash %a, Int $b) {...}
and I want to (distinctly) wrap each multisub, say for testing, or AOP,
or whatever. How do I get the two different code references? As far as i
can gather from the Apocalipses and Synopses, there should be a way to
express the long name, and use that to get the ref. Is there any
proposed syntax for this? (I ask about syntax because the semantic seems
pretty clear...)
--
Dakkar - Mobilis in mobile
GPG public key fingerprint = A071 E618 DD2C 5901 9574
6FE2 40EA 9883 7519 3F88
key id = 0x75193F88
--
() Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xEBD27418 perl hacker
/\ kung foo master: /me beats up some cheese: neeyah!
pgpeCSXevxk5a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl6 and support for Refactoring IDE's
On May 26, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Piers Cawley wrote: Stevan Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... The way I see it working is that the language itself has a bunch of minimal hooks that get triggered by various phases of compilation etc. Your editor then becomes something that instruments the compiler in such a way that loading a file for editing compiles it, but the compilation process hangs populates the data structures you need for editing. Sorry to have dropped out of this thread for so long. I'm glad to see such smart people thinking about this too. I like what Piers is suggesting, not because I am in any way qualified to say how practical it is, but because the idea he presents really would make it possible to have much better tools for Perl. The idea that the language will allow an editor (an IDE) to really find out the knowable information about the source code is the crucial thing. Frankly, there are huge improvements in tools possible for Perl5, just by accepting some limitations - we probably cannot duplicate the refactoring support available for Java in Perl5, but we can do one heck of a lot better than just extract subroutine (which is the *only* refactoring available now in a Perl IDE.) We are still not even at the simple things should be easy stage of a refactoring IDE for Perl, and I'd be happy to at least get there before worrying about the hard things are possible stage :-) Once I saw how cool the features in something like Eclipse are for another language it really has made me see how far behind Perl is in this area. I'm really scared that Perl will be an unacceptable choice for larger projects in less than a two years. -Matisse --- Matisse Enzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.matisse.net/ - http://www.eigenstate.net/ 415-225-6703 (work/cellphone) 415-401-8325 (home)
