Aaron Sherman wrote:
=table C$_ | C$x | Type of Match Implied | Matching Code
=row Any | CodeC $ | scalar sub truth | match if
C$x($_)
That's (the above comments aside) the same thing, and as I said when
Luke suggested it, it seems fine if that's the way we'd prefer to go.
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant. It's not so much that
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-08-23 12:53 (-0400):
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant
(...)
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me flings coffee cup
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've ever really
Juerd wrote:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
sub foo :doc(take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.) (
Anything involving a string is not good for documentation, because in
documenation it must be *easy* to add code examples. Besides that, ()
would make me want to put it all on one line, and that may be
unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Rod Adams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
sub foo :doc(take an Foo::Bar, and foo it
Thalhammer, Jeffrey BGI SF skribis 2004-08-23 12:03 (-0700):
unsubscribe
It doesn't work that way. If I'm not mistaken, unsubscribing is done by
sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Also, you might want to consider using a sane e-mail program and some
training in quoting :)
Juerd
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
my Foo $obj .= new;
# OR #
require Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
import
On 8/23/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote:
What if we add Cdoc attribute that the execution compiler would
discard, but POD compilers (and debuggers) could make use of? I
believe that would even allow a particularly stringent corporate
policy to create a flavor of 'strict' which required
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
No, like I said: this is not golf. I'm trying to
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any
Aaron Sherman wrote:
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant.
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
about proposing something like:
sub foo (
Foo::Bar$bar,
Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
+$verbose,
+$foo
) description
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the code, there are equal but opposite
reasons to
Hello,
Aaron Sherman wrote:
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
[ snip ]
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
is $foo implicitely declared as our or my (or
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:51:00 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be
Juerd writes:
Where :: (in a module name) can be used, an operator could have been
used.
How is $foo??Bar::Baz::Quux parsed?
$foo ?? Bar::Baz::Quux; # error, :: expected
Indeed, this is illegal:
Bar::Baz :: Quux.new;
No whitespace allowed.
I hope it's an error, although some
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
the docs in the same file as the
Sean O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new(blah);
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new(blah);
Dave.
There has been a lot of discussion in the other threads lately about
iterators. I was wondering if there will be an easy way to create a
bidirectional iterator? Toy example to show what I'm thinking:
for(1..10) {
next if /7/; # always skip 7
prev if 9 !rand 3; # occasionally
Dave Whipp wrote:
Sean O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new(blah);
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new(blah);
Wow, that's pretty amazing... uh...
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and bug-fixes it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous. I'd
even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
to the troublesome double-usage of C::
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having to
use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having
to use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it stands out as much as
it should.
I hate to reply to my own message, but...
How about
$foo??split()!!0;
for a touch of craziness. Or is !! not usable? Actually, just
Aaron Sherman writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and bug-fixes it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
28 matches
Mail list logo
