Acadi asked:
is it possible to extend the perl sigil behaviour .
Yes.
that is , one day somebody decides it needs ¢ as sigil for certain
class of variables . will it be possible to do . ( without rewriting
the whole perl )
Yes. Just inherit the standard Perl grammar, extend the Cvar rule
Larry Wall writes:
It would be really funny to use cent ¢, pound £, or yen ¥ as a
sigil, though...
C'mon, everybody's doing it! First one's free, kid... ;-)
People who believe slippery slope arguments should never go skiing.
just (re)reading *old* threads :
is it
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
e.g.
I can force all variables starting with 'A' to be constant .
now 'A' is special sigil .
( can I ??? )
( probably this is something perl should avoid somehow )
And by extension, you can force all variables starting with 'hwpstr' to
be a certain
Larry Wall writes:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(x, y, z) - $x, $y, $z {
The first message had many of the following characters viewable in my
telnet window, but the repost introduced a 0xC2 prefix to the 0xA7 character.
I have this feeling that many people would vote against posting all these
funny characters, as is does make reading the perl6 mailing lists
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:27:56PM -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote:
: Mutt?
:
: I'm using mutt and I still haven't had the privledge of correctly viewing one
: of these unicode characters yet. I'm gonna be really mad if you say you're
: also using an OS X terminal. I suspect that it's my horrific OS
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 11:36:45AM -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
: will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
: from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
:
: for
On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 04:58 Asia/Tokyo, Larry Wall wrote:
(B It would be really funny to use cent $B!q(B, pound $B!r(B, or yen (J\(B as a sigil,
(B though...
(B
(BWhich 'yen' ? I believe you already know \ (U+005c - REVERSE SOLIDUS)
(Bis prited as a yen figure in most of
This UTF discussion has got silly.
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need
a lot to be desired.
Lets consider
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:21:54PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
But let's keep it
out of the signature, I think. In other words, if something like
for @x ∥ @y ∥ @z - $x, $y, $z { ... }
is to work, then
@result = @x ∥ @y ∥ @z;
has to interleave @x, @y,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Of course, I also think I'm allowed to be a little inconsistent in
forcing things like ?op? on people. After all, there's gotta be
some advantage to being the Fearless Leader...
Which kind of begs the question: Who are
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
for zip(a,b,c) - $x,$y,$z { ... }
sub zip (\:ref repeat{1,}) {
my $max =
Thanks, I've been hoping for someone to post that list. Taking it one
step further, we can assume that the only chars that can be used are
those which:
-- don't have an obvious meaning that needs to be reserved
-- appear decently on all platforms
-- are distinct and recognizable in the tiny
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
recourse to use the
Dan Kogai wrote:
We already have source filters in perl5 and I'm pretty much sure
someone will just invent yet another 'use operators = ascii;' kind
of stuff in perl6.
I think that's backwards to have operators being funny characters by
default but requiring explicit declaration to use
Richard Proctor wrote:
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
it.
... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
will work under UTF8 and Latin-1 and Windows ...
What
Scott Duff wrote:
Very nice. The n-ary zip operator.
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well?
Yes, I expect so. Much as C|, C, and C^ will be operator versions
of Cany, Call, and Cone.
And I'd suggest that it be implemented something like:
sub zip(ARRAY *sources; $by = 1) {
if
On Tue 05 Nov, Smylers wrote:
Richard Proctor wrote:
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
it.
... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
will work under
As one of the instigators of this thread, I submit that we've probably
argued about the Unicode stuff enough. The basic issues are now known,
and it's known that there's no general agreement on any of this stuff,
nor will there ever be. To wit:
-- Extended glyphs might be extremely useful
Scott Duff wrote:
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
Michael Lazzaro proposed:
It's up to Larry, and he knows where we're all coming from. Unless
anyone has any _new_ observations, I propose we pause the debate until a
decision is reached?
I second the motion!
Damian
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode characters, not to mention everyone
else's. If you don't
Larry Wall:
(B# for @x $B!B(B @y $B!B(B @z - $x, $y, $z { ... }
(B
(BEven if you decide to use UTF-8 operators (which I am Officially
(BRecommending Against), *please* don't use this one. This shows up as a
(Bbox in the Outlook UTF-8 font.
(B
(B--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04/11/02 17:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode
Larry wrote:
I've actually got my eye on ≈ (U+2248 ALMOST EQUAL TO) as a
replacement for ~~ someday in the distant future.
I suppose it could be argued that we should use ≅ (U+2245
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO) instead. That's what =~ was supposed to
represent, after all...
Yeah, either of those
Larry wrote:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(x, y, z) - $x, $y, $z { ... }
the
--- Matthew Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
So let me make my original question a little more
general: are Perl 6 source files encoded in Latin-1,
UTF-8, or
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:19:55AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
UTF-8 «op» representations have the advantage of trivially not
conflicting with _any_ existing operators, and being visually distinct
from all of them. There may be a few other things in
easy-to-find-and-type Latin1, like one
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:27:16AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Matthew Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
So let me make my original question a little more
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED], UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR.
wrote:
Mmm, I view one-character Unicode operators as more of an escape
hatch
for the future, not as something to be made mandatory. But then,
I'm one of those ugly Americans.
EBCDIC didn't support brackets, originally, so
On 2002-11-04 at 12:26:56, Austin Hastings wrote:
1- ? and ? are really useful in my context.
Okay. Now can you get your mailer to send them properly? :)
After all, there's gotta be some advantage to
being the Fearless Leader...
Larry
Thousands will cry for the blood of the Perl 6
design team. As Leader, you can draw their ire.
Because you are Fearless, you won't mind...
--
ralph
Ken Fox wrote:
I know I'm just another sample point in a sea of samples, but
my embedded symbol parser seems optimized for alphabetic symbols.
The cool non-alphabetic Unicode symbols are beautiful to look at,
but they don't help me read or write faster.
Once again: we're only talking about «
Garrett Goebel wrote:
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or trigraph
alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode?
Allow both * and »*«?
I'd really prefer we didn't. I'd much rather keep and for other
things.
Or something similar '*', [*], etc...
Much as I
people on the list who can't be bothered to read
the documentation for their own keyboard IO system.
Most of this discussion seems to focus on keyboarding.
But that's of little consequence. This will always be
spotted before it does much harm and will affect just
one person and their software
--- Me [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
people on the list who can't be bothered to read
the documentation for their own keyboard IO system.
Most of this discussion seems to focus on keyboarding.
But that's of little consequence. This will always be
spotted before it does much harm and will
I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And especially for
these operators...
So, yeah, include trigraph sequences if it will make happy the people
on the list who can't be bothered to read the documentation for their
own keyboard IO system.
But don't expect the rest of
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
In short:
1- ? and ? are really useful in my context.
2- I can make my work environment generate them in one (modified)
keystroke.
3- I can make my home environment do likewise.
4- The ascii-only version isn't faster and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
Or something similar '*', [*], etc...
Much as I hate the notion of di- and trigraphs, this is a possibility.
I do like this too, because it reminds me of C trigraphs, which had precisely
the same purpose - allow people with old-fashioned sub-standard
--- Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed
says
my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing high-bit characters
as
US-ASCII. Several people the other day reported
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Yeah, but ActiveState does Perl, and Microsoft owns ActiveState
To what extent are *either* of those statements true? :)
--
All the good ones are taken.
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be *.
A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the penalty for not
upgrading to something that can handle unicode.
Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
seriously
Ken Fox wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be *.
A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the
penalty for not upgrading to something that can handle
unicode.
Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding
Garrett Goebel:
# Ken Fox wrote:
# Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
# seriously out of hand. That 5 char ASCII sequence is *identically*
# encoded when read by the human eye. Humans can probably type the 5
# char sequence faster too. How does Unicode win
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 08:55 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or
# trigraph alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode?
The Unicode version is more typing than the non-Unicode version, so
what's the advantage? It's prettier?
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
You know, separate streams in a for loop are not going to be that
common in practic, so maybe we should look around a little harder for
a supercomma that isn't a semicolon. Now *that* would be a big step
in reducing ambiguity...
Or
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Yeah, but ActiveState does Perl, and Microsoft owns ActiveState
To what extent are *either* of those statements true? :)
Hmm. Well, last time I checked you could still download a perl binary
from
--- Adam D. Lopresto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And
especially for these operators.
Heute vektoren, morgen das welt!
Uniperl, Uniperl uber alles,
Uber alles in der welt!
With hyper-states through choose and true();
Masterfully golf
On 04/11/02 14:09 -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed
says
my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing high-bit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
If @a [*=] @b; doesn't scan like rats chewing their way into your
cable, what does?
This is why God gave us functions as well as operators.
--
I _am_ pragmatic. That which works, works, and theory can go screw
itself.
- Linus Torvalds
Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
So let me make my original question a little more general: are Perl 6 source
files encoded in Latin-1, UTF-8, or will Perl 6 provide some sort of
translation mechanism, like specifying the charset on the command line?
I expect probably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Zimmerman) writes:
Larry has been consistently using
OxAB op 0xBB
in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
(corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?)
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 06:07:34AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
I do most of my work over an ssh connection to my favorite server,
through gnome-terminal. gnome-terminal does not support unicode, so
this whole thread has been filled with ?'s and \251's. I can't see a
thing...
gnome-terminal
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:44:39PM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Zimmerman) writes:
Larry has been consistently using
OxAB op 0xBB
in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
(corresponding to
On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Zimmerman) writes:
Larry has been consistently using
OxAB op 0xBB
in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
(corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
More and more conversations
From: Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 14:44:39 +0200
On 2 Nov 2002 at 0:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl,
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 04:06 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list if we persist
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 12:06:07AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list if we persist
On 2002.11.01 19:06 Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list if we persist with this idiotic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson) writes:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list if we persist with this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
It may seem idiotic to the egocentric people who only needs chars a-z
in his language. But for all others (think about Chinese), Unicode is
real asset.
I don't often think about Chinese. Chinese is hard. But I think about
Japanese a lot of the time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wheeler) writes:
You keep saying
I didn't think I was doing it habitually.
or suggesting that the idea of using Unicode operators
is idiotic. Perhaps you could make an argument in support that
assertion (as Luke and Paul have done).
Sure:
More and more
Simon Cozens wrote:
On the other hand, maybe I'm being as shortsighted as Thomas J Watson
[1] and that once the various operating systems do get their Unicode
support together and we see the introduction of the 50,000 key keyboard,
Of course, scary 50K keyboards aren't really necessary. All we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
Of course, scary 50K keyboards aren't really necessary. All we really need is
a keybord with configurable keys. That is, each key has an LED, or OLED,
or digital plastic surface, and an index key that allows you to select the
Unicode block to be
Larry Wall wrote:
Well, the other guys are suggesting bow tie operators, so maybe we should keep
«foo bar baz» with French quotes, and go with a »*« b for vector multiply.
I wouldn't have a problem with that.
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be *.
A five character
Simon Cozens wrote:
Of course, scary 50K keyboards aren't really necessary. All we really need is
a keybord with configurable keys. That is, each key has an LED, or OLED,
or digital plastic surface, and an index key that allows you to select the
Unicode block to be currently mapped onto the
On Saturday, November 2, 2002, at 08:33 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
More and more conversations like this, (and how many have we seen
here
already?) about characters sets, encodings, mail quoting issues, in
fact, anything other than Perl, will be rife on every Perl-related
mailing list
I guess I
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
now *theres* some brackets!
Ooh! Let's use 2AF7 and 2AF8 for qw!
Actually, I wanted to suggest »German quotes« instead of French for qw.
:)
~ John Williams
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:05:27AM -0700, John Williams wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
now *theres* some brackets!
Ooh! Let's use 2AF7 and 2AF8 for qw!
Actually, I wanted to suggest »German quotes« instead of French for qw.
:)
Well, the other guys are
Larry has been consistently using
OxAB op 0xBB
in his messages to represent a (French quote) hyperop,
(corresponding to the Unicode characters 0x00AB and 0x00BB)
which is consistent with the iso-8859-1 encoding (despite
the fact that my mailserver or his mailer insists on
labelling those
Here is an extensive FAQ for Unicode and UTF-8:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html
and here is a test file that will show you how many of the most common
glyphs (WGL4, via Microsoft) you are capable of displaying in your
current setup:
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math has given us, check out:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf
now *theres* some brackets!
MikeL
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:11:00 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math has given us, check out:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf
now *theres* some brackets!
Ooh! Let's use 2AF7 and 2AF8 for
74 matches
Mail list logo
