On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:17:24PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
blockquote
It's important to note that writing:
for a; b - $x; $y {...}
# in parallel, iterate a one-at-a-time as $x, and b one-at-a-time as
$y
is not the same as writing:
On 4/17/02 5:38 AM, Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
I've got the horrible feeling that doing it this way will lead to
nasty ambiguities in parsing, but if that's not the case then I must
confess that I prefer this syntax. Especially if you want to do
something like:
for @a, @b ;
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
Piers wrote:
one could always handle the first case
more explicitly by doing:
sub load_data ($filename; $version) {
$version = 1 if _.length 2;
...
}
Err...no. If you specify named parameters, you don't get _.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:15:15AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
Perhaps using \ in the signature to indicate p-b-r is not the
best...it could confuse people into thinking that they will need to
manually dereference the variable, which they shouldn't need to do.
Is there a way to do
In a message dated Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Dave Storrs writes:
sub load_data ( \$filename; $version; _ ) {
I think you can do exactly this with
sub load_data ( $filename is rw, $version, _ ) {
Yes? Or maybe
sub load_data ( $filename is rw, $version, *@_) {
to make sure _ gets
Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
later.
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM:
On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 11:23, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:38:59PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
I've got the horrible feeling that doing it this way will lead to
nasty ambiguities in parsing, but if that's not the case then I must
confess that I prefer this syntax.
On 4/17/02 1:20 PM, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
This gets ugly when you mix in traditional C for (are we keeping that in
Perl6?):
Yes, but it's name is changing to Cloop.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Several people said something like $var is rw will do it)
Ah, that's right. I had forgotten about this.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Dave
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:09:43PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
later.
I hope
On 4/17/02 1:51 PM, Dave Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
I hope you're referring to 5.8.x for some x != 0 ??? :-)
Do you know how late in the development process the $coderef-() feature was
added to Perl (in whatever release that was)? Ask Randal to talk about it
sometime. ;-)
But maybe
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:09:43PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
later.
It is not
On 4/17/02 2:17 PM, Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
The problem with // is that it already has a meaning and although perl6 will
redefine it
can we do so in perl5 ? I don't think we can.
Oh yeah, you're right. Perl 5 would have to require that it be m//, and that
would break a lot of
Randal L. Schwartz:
# David == David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# David Anyone know what the chances are that some
# enterprising C hacker
# David can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems
# David like it wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love
# to have it
#
14 matches
Mail list logo
