{ ... } # maybe?
but that's probably more obscure than the comma.
Okay, so I don't have any good ideas either, but I like also if
we're getting rid of the C comma.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Damian Conway writes:
Perhaps this is yet another argument for insisting on:
while do {$n++; $foo $bar}
instead.
Yes please! Is anybody here a fan of the C comma? I don't think I've
ever used it -- well, not intentionally, anyway -- but these are the
situations where I've spotted
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
or maybe throw some latin in there
while $n++ et @accum $total { ... }
while $n++ cum @accum $total { ... } # maybe?
I think ac is the latin conjunction you want.
ac : conj. and, and also, and besides
On 2003-11-25 at 13:46:39, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
or maybe throw some latin in there
while $n++ et @accum $total { ... }
while $n++ cum @accum $total { ... } # maybe?
I think ac is the latin conjunction you want.
ac
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:03:19PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Schwern observed:
This may be a consequence of the example used
while $n++ then $foo $bar
which I immediately associated with.
if $n++ then $foo $bar
Yeah, I can certainly see that.
Perhaps this is yet
Damian Conway wrote:
Micheal G. Schwern wrote:
It also doesn't convey anything about evaluate the left
hand side, ignore the results and evaluate the right.
I think that's exactly what it conveys:
The suspect drank half a dozen double whiskys then drove
into a lake.
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
or maybe throw some latin in there
while $n++ et @accum $total { ... }
while $n++ cum @accum $total { ... } # maybe?
Et, of course, is unsuitable as a direct synonym for and.
I'm afraid that adding the second would cause Perl source code
to
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:46:39PM -0700, John Williams wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
or maybe throw some latin in there
while $n++ et @accum $total { ... }
while $n++ cum @accum $total { ... } # maybe?
I think ac is the latin conjunction you
worse, though.
Hmm. Why not just explicitly allow semicolon when surrounded by parens?
while ($n++; $foo $bar) {...}
Well, because the intent of the original proposal was to fatten up the
C comma to make it explicit, easy to see, and clearly unambiguous. A
semicolon does none
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:48:08PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Austin Hastings writes:
C style Cfor loops then look like:
for (($a = 0; $b = $num_elts); $a @arry; ($a++; $b -= $offset)) {...}
By which you mean
loop ($a = 0; $b = $num_elts); $a @arry; ($a++; $b -= $offset)
Adam Turoff wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Perhaps this is yet another argument for insisting on:
while do {$n++; $foo $bar}
instead.
That looks like syntactic sugar for
while (do) {$n++; $foo $bar}
do is not merely prototyped, but a builtin. With a mandatory {}
Honestly you guys, I'm not trolling. I'm just getting a lot of ideas
recently. :-)
The C comma has always bugged me, but its function is indeed useful
(many times I use Cand in its place, if I know the left side will
always be true). I don't know whether it's staying or not (I've heard
rumors
On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 05:00:38PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
The C comma has always bugged me, but its function is indeed useful
(many times I use Cand in its place, if I know the left side will
always be true). I don't know whether it's staying or not (I've heard
rumors of both), but I'd
Honestly you guys, I'm not trolling. I'm just getting a lot of ideas
recently. :-)
Honestly, I'm not an expert on Perl 6 syntax. (And I actually am being
honest... ;-) But I'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. :-)
snipah
This word: Cthen.
So, from a recent script of mine:
my $n;
anything about evaluate the left hand side, ignore
the results and evaluate the right. Unfortunately, I don't have a better
name.
Candthen
Of course I've always thought the semicolon would have been a better choice
for the C comma. That way C($a, $b, $c) would always be a list, and
C($a; $b; $c
I'm very much in favour of heteronymifying scalar vs list comma too.
Or else eliminating one of them.
Schwern wrote:
then sounds too much like if/then which is confusing.
Why? if/then has never been Perl syntax.
It also doesn't convey anything about evaluate the left hand side, ignore
the
from looking at looping constructs from Eiffel
as well as elsewhere and looking for the unifying stuff).
Regards,
-- Gregor
On Mon, 2003-11-24 at 16:00, Luke Palmer wrote:
Honestly you guys, I'm not trolling. I'm just getting a lot of ideas
recently. :-)
The C comma has always bugged me
On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 12:21:13PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
then sounds too much like if/then which is confusing.
Why? if/then has never been Perl syntax.
A lot of people read if (foo) { bar } as if foo then bar in their heads.
I'm one of them. Its not a previous syntax thing, its a
Schwern observed:
A lot of people read if (foo) { bar } as if foo then bar in their heads.
I'm one of them. Its not a previous syntax thing, its a translation to
English thing.
Fair enough. It's not something I do myself, but I can see that many people
might prefer to.
This may be a
19 matches
Mail list logo
