On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered:
| Peter Scott writes:
| : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
| : dramatic change in the name?
|
|
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:32:46PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Damian's writing a series of articles parallel to Larry's Apocalypses.
These Exegesis articles will show full perl6 programs, with
commentary exlaining the new features.
The first Exegesis (numbered 2, to keep in sync with
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:59:07PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'?
It is impossible to answer this question without knowing what you mean by the
word. Larry has seen and edited the article; is that what you mean?
What is open to debate on this?
First of all: Damian, thank you for putting this together. This is a
really good way to dispell the concerns/doubts/pick-a-word that people
(including myself) have been having about whether Perl6 would be the
language that we all know and love.
There was a great deal of stuff in there and I
Dave Storrs writes:
at first I was alarmed and a bit appalled at a lot of the
changes...e.g., the 'HASH $tree is rw' parameter declaration.
Jesus, I thought if I wanted a typed languaged, I'd use C++.
The more I read, however, the more I became convinced that these
were actually elegant
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias
for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write
more-grammatically-correct statements such as my $var has
Colors(3). Since 'are' is being
Edward Peschko writes:
Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'? What is open to
debate on this?
As Simon says, ask whatever questions you want.
print Post order: ; show($root,$post); print \n;
would be better off written as:
print Post order: show($root, $post)\n;
wouldn't
Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias
for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write
more-grammatically-correct statements such as my $var has
Colors(3).
So, I finally got around to reading the link Nat sent out:
http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/05/08/exegesis2.html
First off, nice job Damian (as always), it looks excellent. I like the
examples of stuff like this:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
Awesome. Simple, Perlish, easy
On 5/15/01 5:59 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
would be better off written as...
...speaking of which:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
What, no caps?
my int ($PRE, $IN, $POST) is constant = (0..2);
Looks nicer to me...or are all-caps vars reserved for
internal use in Perl
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:49:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Looks nicer to me.
Did you know that other people might find other things nicer?
TMTOWDTI has not been ruled out for Perl 6.
--
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
-- Genji
For example, I see that 'use warnings' and 'use strict' are still at the top
of the page.
Yes. Is there some point you want to make about that?
yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings'
department.
print Post order: ; show($root,$post); print \n;
would
At 11:54 PM 5/15/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote:
i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do
similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone
else to come up with the 7 other
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings'
department.
Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well.
well, better in the sense that it shows off perl6's style and new features.
And is shorter
Simon Cozens writes:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote:
i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do
similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone
else to come up with the 7 other ways to prove ownership of
Okay, this part has me confused. Here we build up a node hash:
my %node;
%node{LEFT} = undef;
%node{RIGHT} = undef;
%node{VALUE} = $val is Found(0);
$tree = %node;
What has the Found property here? I look at that and I think the value
associated with %node hash's VALUE
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:25:34AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings'
department.
Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well.
Exactly. This has not
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:55:41PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
fine.. except if it was about TMTOWTDI, both could have been included...
There's more than one way not to do it, too. :)
--
Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same
entropy to create bugs instead?
--
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
The only worry/problem/etc that I wonder about is the potential overuse
of the is keyword. It is a very nice syntactic tool, but when I see
something like this:
$*ARGS is chomped;
I wonder if that wouldn't be better phrased
Simon observed:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias
for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write
more-grammatically-correct statements such as my $var has
John Siracusa wrote:
Okay, this part has me confused.
And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping
the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing both.
Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally
unset)
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:07, Damian Conway wrote:
John Siracusa wrote:
Okay, this part has me confused.
And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping
the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing
both.
What? You didn't test it before
On 5/15/01 9:07 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally
unset) property on the node reference would have returned Cundef which
would undergo the usual boolean conversion in the Cif, and the usual
promotion to zero in the numerical
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-)
Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6 interpreter in
Perl 5 for testing. We have the variable semantics sorted out, but properties
might
Bryan C. Warnock sniped:
Okay, this part has me confused.
And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping
the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing
both.
What? You didn't test it before you posted it?
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:17, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-)
Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6
interpreter in Perl 5 for testing. We have
Damian Conway wrote:
Simon observed:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias
for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write
more-grammatically-correct
At 03:20 PM 5/15/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 07:47 PM 5/15/01 +, Ton Hospel wrote:
PSEUDO-HASHES MUST DIE!
I happen to like them
I like the feature of a hash whose keys are fixed in the sense that you
have to jump through a hoop to add a new one. Without having to
28 matches
Mail list logo
