John Williams writes:
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Matt Diephouse wrote:
Don't say -1st is the first from last. If last is the opposite of
first, I would expect 1st to mean first from first, which would
mean the second. Say first from the end.
It matches up with perl5 C$array[-1] and is a
Simon Cozens wrote:
For heaven's sake. Have you even *seen* the Perl 5 internals? If you don't
trust things which are self-declared scary hackery to be stable, you probably
shouldn't be using Perl until Perl 6 comes out. And probably not until then.
Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Hursh) writes:
Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried to get a department of
mine to switch over to perl from csh and REXX of all things, I have
co-workers I hope never see this.
They may need to write their own operating system if they want to avoid the
dodgy
John Siracusa wrote:
1. The special dir of files (SDoF). Ignoring, for now, the argument for a
standard way to do this, all the core needs to do to bootstrap an entire
ecosystem of app packagers is support some standard starting point. Maybe
it's a file names main.pl inside a *.pmx dir, or
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, James Mastros wrote:
PS -- Unreatedly, why, oh why, do people insist on an apostrophe in 80's
Maybe in the 80's is like at the Jones's. Not that I care, mind you.
and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 11:37 (-0600):
and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
@array[ $foo'th ];
Maybe what I'm saying now is a really bad idea, because it doesn't make
sense, but can't we just have an adverb that
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Juerd wrote:
John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 11:37 (-0600):
and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
@array[ $foo'th ];
Maybe what I'm saying now is a really bad idea, because it doesn't make
sense,
James Mastros wrote:
We can, and I think should, write a one-paragraph documentation,
one-screenful implementation of this that's in perl core:
As a special case, if the filename argument to perl is a directory,
and the directory contains a file named main.pl, then the directory
is
Smylers wrote:
(But personally I'm quite happy with zero-based arrays, so as long as
-1 continues to work for those I'm not too bothered what happens with
other cases.)
This is an interesting point: can the perl optimizer be made to treat
0-based contiguous lists in the same way that perl 5
Hmm, this would suggest that in P6 the comment that unlike ++,
the -- operator is not magical should no longer apply.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:09:23AM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004
Juerd wrote:
John Williams wrote:
4 :th
$foo :th
No. Adverbs modify verbs (operators or functions), not terms like 4 or
$foo.
Then perhaps a method? Number::th?
4.th
$foo.th
Again, with a bit of magic where the dot is optional when the object in
question is an
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 20:08, Larry Wall wrote:
Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the
minus notation to count from the end. We probably need to come up
with some other notation for the beginning and end indexes. But it'd
be nice if that were a little shorter than:
Jonathan Lang skribis 2004-09-07 14:12 (-0700):
Again, with a bit of magic where the dot is optional when the object in
question is an integer literal: 4th =:= 4.th - and probably with special
synonyms for th when the literal is any of (1 or -1, 2 or -2, 3 or -3) -
Number::st, Number::nd, and
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 06:07:24PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
4. The single-file, platform dependent, machine language executable
(realexe). This is a plain old executable, that does not particularly
indicate it was generated by a scripting language. It requires no odd
handing vs a
Mark Overmeer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oops, someone starts the holy war (again). Wether you put the docs
in begin or end of the file, or intermixed with the code has a lot
to do with your personal background.
Sorry for the late reply, but I can't let this stand without further
elaboration:
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:34:33PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: If a int1 (or int2 or nybble or other sub-addressable sized
: value) is being referred to, a similar issue arises since most
: machines these days have byte addressing, but do not have bit
: addressing. If you can't refer directly
Juerd wrote:
Jonathan Lang skribis 2004-09-07 14:12 (-0700):
if we want to look at the next existing element, we can say (1 +
1).th; if we want to look at the element whose index is one higher
than the first index, we can say 1.st + 1.
I read this three times, but don't get it. Can you
17 matches
Mail list logo
