On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
instead?
A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
print,next if /stgh/;
kinda syntax too, and I, for one, will regret not having it anymore, I
wonder
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Juerd wrote:
wonder wether something vaguely like the following example could (be made
to) work:
print.then{next} if /stgh/;
Ehm. It can probably be made to work with sufficient black magic, but I
fail to see how:
- then as a method of print makes sense
then as
Michele Dondi skribis 2004-07-09 11:39 (+0200):
- then as a method of print makes sense
then as a method of everything
How does then as a method make sense? A method has to be somehow related
to the object. Don't use methods for syntactic sugar, Perl 6 has plenty
of ways to add sugar without
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hans Ginzel writes:
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:16PM +1000, Gautam Gopalakrishnan wrote:
about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array
subscripting
anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier
than using
Michele Dondi wrote:
A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
print,next if /stgh/;
Ouch. I hadn't thought of that. I'm a big fan of litering loops with
discard(),next if dontCareBecause(); # it don't matter here
type constructs. I was going to suggest
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
: instead?
:
: A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
:
: print,next if /stgh/;
:
:
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something
new
: instead?
:
: A late thought, but since I am one of thow
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
: Would that not be:-
:
: say Basename is $(str.subst(rx|.*/|, ''))
:
: I thought when you were interpolating method calls you had to put brackets
: $(object.meth), so that you could still write things like:-
:
: $fh =
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Will there be a statement modifier version of Cwhen?
:
: print, next when /stgh/;
Yes, though in this case it's indistinguishable from Cif, since //
defaults to $_ anyway. However, these are different:
print, next when
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
:
: { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
declare that there can't be.
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: : Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
: :
: : { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
:
: If there
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
: declare that there can't be.
:
: Be as unreasonable as you want -- the
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:56:41AM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote:
: Hello everybody,
:
: I'm about to learn myself perl6 (after using perl5 for some time).
I'm also trying to learn perl6 after using perl5 for some time. :-)
: One of my first questions deals with regexes.
:
:
: I'd like to parse
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: if not C, then what?
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Will there be a statement modifier version of Cwhen?
:
:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:14:32 -0400, Joe Gottman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: if not C, then what?
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
declare that there can't be. You can always say:
do { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
(It's still the case
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:58:49AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
: declare that there can't be.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:13:29 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
: instead?
:
: A late thought, but since
Except people don't actually read the documentation, and when they
do read it, they don't understand it, and when they do understand it,
they'll write it wrong anyway out of habit. You might as well write
your warning in Russian for all the good it'll do. :-)
So we'll force people who want any
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:12:54AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: perl is filled with functions which do different things in different
: contexts. It seems that in perl6 with plenty of new contexts, it will
: be even more stimuls for that habit. So real question is:
: in expression C
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:25:40 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:12:54AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: perl is filled with functions which do different things in different
: contexts. It seems that in perl6 with plenty of new contexts, it will
: be even more
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:00:44 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:41:41AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later
are
: gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
: %hashkey (
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
Arguably, the :shiftvalue syntax makes it easier to quote both
sides of a pair, so perhaps there's a little less need for an
autoquoting =. But I think that generating non-quoted keys for
subscripting happens a lot more often than non-quoted keys for pairs,
so I'm
23 matches
Mail list logo
