Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, * was originally a no-op in list context, but I think now we can
use it to deref a list that would otherwise not interpolate itself.
It maps better onto how a C programmer thinks, and if in scalar
context it also happens to defer the signature checking to use the
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:59:36AM +0100, James Mastros wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Yes, * was originally a no-op in list context, but I think now we can
: use it to deref a list that would otherwise not interpolate itself.
: It maps better onto how a C programmer thinks, and if in scalar
:
On 2004-03-26 at 08:16:07, Larry Wall wrote:
And say isn't in there because of APL or PHP. It's actually inspired
by something worse in Ruby.
Presumably by something worse you mean puts? Not a great name, to
be sure, but it does have a venerable tradition behind it. :)
I do like having an
Larry Wall writes:
: Also, how does the use of *$foo differ from @$foo here? Is the later
: going away? (I'd think that horrible, for the same reason as above: C
: is confusing because it's not always clear what you get when you *.)
No, @$foo is not going away. You can write it that way
Larry Wall skribis 2004-03-25 12:33 (-0800):
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: say @bar.elems; # prints 1
: Csay? Not Cprint?
It's just a println spelled Huffmanly.
What happened to the principle that things that work
Juerd writes:
Larry Wall skribis 2004-03-25 12:33 (-0800):
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: say @bar.elems;# prints 1
: Csay? Not Cprint?
It's just a println spelled Huffmanly.
Can't we instead just have a
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:41:23AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Okay, good. So this is correct:
:
: my $baz = @foo;
: @bar = map { ... } @$baz;
:
: (to be equivalent of mapping over @foo)?
Yes, that's correct.
: Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
:
Larry Wall writes:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:41:23AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
: $baz is some more complex expression, and I don't want to use * (say I
: want to adhere if map decides to change its signature to take a
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 15:20, Luke Palmer wrote:
When writing Perl 5, I always find myself writing @{ more often than @$.
Maybe it's just a bad habit that I don't tend to use a lot of
intermediate variables.
Well, one of the big problems with Perl 5's dereferencing is that it's
painful to
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juerd writes:
Has this Csay already been decided?
Doesn't matter, because most of these decisions are up for discussion.
I think everything that was decided when Apocalypse 3 was written has
changed at least three times
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Gottman) writes:
This function would be very useful in inner loops, so if it is possible to
implement it more efficiently in the core than as a sub in a module I think
we should do so.
And, if it's possible to implement it more efficiently in the core than as a
sub in a
11 matches
Mail list logo
