Matt Fowles skribis 2004-11-29 22:22 (-0500):
Juerd suggested scrapping qx and qw in favor of qq:x and qq:w, which
Larry liked.
Credit for this shouldn't be mine, but Larry's, as it's his invention:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juerd
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 11:59:21AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: Seeing the « in the context of a here-doc made me think can you do a
: » here-doc?
Nope, you can only hyper operators, not terms.
Incidentally, just like mathematically (albeit slightly loosely) an
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:43:10 +0100, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alexey Trofimenko skribis 2004-11-30 9:09 (+0300):
delimiters should have corresponding closing character, so it should be
something like
Please, stop seeing ` as a circumfix operator in this context. What you
do is like saying
A request to everyone who wants to discuss this again: please, read the
Backticks thread. Almost everything that can be said about this subject
has already been said before. It is a huge thread, and let's not copy
everything here.
Alexey Trofimenko skribis 2004-11-30 14:34 (+0300):
but it puts
Incidentally, just like mathematically (albeit slightly loosely) an
element of a set can be thought of as a function from any singleton,
would it be possible for Perl 6 to provide a fast (under the
syntactical point of view) way to promote a term to a function
returning it?
What's wrong with
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Christensen wrote:
Incidentally, just like mathematically (albeit slightly loosely) an element
of a set can be thought of as a function from any singleton, would it be
possible for Perl 6 to provide a fast (under the syntactical point of view)
way to promote a term to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, David Christensen wrote:
Incidentally, just like mathematically (albeit slightly loosely) an
element of a set can be thought of as a function from any singleton,
would it be possible for Perl 6 to provide a fast (under the syntactical
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
or the perl6
$xsub = { $x };
Sorry, I was missing the obvious...
Michele
--
[...] is like requiring to play tennis with a square ball.
Which admittedly makes the game more interesting.
- Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta in comp.text.tex (edited)
Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A request to everyone who wants to discuss this again: please, read the
Backticks thread. Almost everything that can be said about this subject
has already been said before.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but everything includes Larry's
rejection of the idea.
Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I am a little confused if the following is valid perl6:
our xsub = { $x };
No. Illegal attempt to assign to a reference. You want aliasing/binding
instead:
our xsub := { $x };
(I like to think of := as assignment to symbol table entry.)
If you wanted to get a function
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:16:03AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: If you wanted to get a function for each element in an array @a, I
: suppose you can say:
:
: sub makefunc($x){{$x}}
: @funcarray = @a.makefunc;
:
: You're attempting to call a sub as a method. You want:
:
: @funcarray =
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:17:42AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: Why to introduce (or REintroduce) something if we have something
: similar already?
:
: $captured = system :capture q/cmd../;
By the way, that one happens to be illegal at the moment. To use
pairs as part of an argument
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-11-30 9:28 (-0800):
A request to everyone who wants to discuss this again: please, read the
Backticks thread. Almost everything that can be said about this subject
has already been said before.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but everything includes
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:09:39AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: When I look at this
:$varkey1key2[3]key3
:
: then I think that it's a *very* cute, nice, and clean syntax... I really
: like it!
: (and I would sacrifice something for that to happen, if I would be Larry
: :) )
: but
Larry Wall wrote:
I rather like it too. I'm glad someone else is thinking along the
same lines. The basic problem with «...» is that most of its uses
were turning out to be more useful that the corresponding
In fact, I was thinking about all this on the way home from Seattle
yesterday (a
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 04:41:00AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: P.P.P.S. If answer on my why? would be just because! I would take it
: silently.
:
: yes, answer was as I predicted above. I promised..
You have a funny idea of what silently means. :-)
: ..but:
: As far as I understood,
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:05:03PM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
: So
:
: my @list = foo bar baz;
:
: is the equivalent of
:
: my @list = ('foo', 'bar', 'baz');
:
: ?
Yes.
: * Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
: how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use
I like this in general. However...
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
whatever) in scalar context, and $fh.fetch or @$fh or $fh[]
or *$fh in
On Nov 30, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Correct. The p5-to-p6 translator will turn any
while (handle) {...}
into
for @$handle {...}
I assume that each value would be still fetched from the file handle
lazily, yes?
Regards,
David
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
I like this in general. However...
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
whatever) in scalar context, and $fh.fetch or @$fh
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:40:01PM -0800, David Wheeler wrote:
: On Nov 30, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Correct. The p5-to-p6 translator will turn any
:
: while (handle) {...}
:
: into
:
: for @$handle {...}
:
: I assume that each value would be still fetched from the
On Nov 30, 2004, at 2:46 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: I assume that each value would be still fetched from the file handle
: lazily, yes?
Um, that was the question my Correct was answering.
D'oh! Sorry.
David
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:26:06PM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: I like this in general. However...
:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: * Since we already stole angles from iterators, $fh is not
: how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
:
Larry Wall wrote:
I'm ready to propose a Great Angle Bracket Renaming.
Hajleuja! Praise the Larry!* It looks wonderful, and just fixed half
about half the things I was worried about having to do when programming
perl6. (Not that hard -- I can't think of any more at the moment, but
I'm sure
Austin Hastings wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
And now, Piers is cackling madly at Matt: welcome to perl6-hightraffic!
:-)
=Austin
Austin~
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:15:54 -0500, Austin Hastings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
And now, Piers is cackling madly at Matt: welcome to perl6-hightraffic!
:-)
Even if he wasn't cackling, I admit to feeling it. I don't even use
the qx/qq/qw
Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$fh -
$fh» (and $fh)
$fh
++$fh
That kind of breaks the metaphor, unfortunately.
I've been thinking more on this, and I may have a better reason for
not liking this proposal. I'm going to pull a Larry and think out
loud for a minute here. Note
Austin Hastings wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
* We get the cute, clean and rather more typeable
$varkey1key2[3]key3
No more or less typeable for me, or anyone else who can remap their
keyboard. I'm presuming there's something costly about {} on non-US
keyboards, but how much does it cost? and
since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
those which are undefined are preserved literally.
its purpose would be to support the construction of strings for
subsequent eval'g, particularly where
MW == Matthew Walton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MW I don't think I've ever used a hash slice in my life. Is there
MW something wrong with me?
yes! :)
see http://www.sysarch.com/perl/tutorials/hash_slice.txt for why they
are so cool.
* The Texas quotes ... are only needed when you *have*
AH == Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AH Larry Wall wrote:
* We get the cute, clean and rather more typeable
$varkey1key2[3]key3
AH No more or less typeable for me, or anyone else who can remap their
AH keyboard. I'm presuming there's something costly about {} on
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:26:06PM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: * Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
: how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
: whatever) in scalar context, and
James Mastros writes:
The problem with {} for a hash dereference operator is not it's
typeablility, but rather it's autoquoting behavior from perl5. In
perl5, the contents of {foo} are a string -- except when they aren't.
Quick:
$wheel-{roll} = 3;
$wheel-{shift} = 4;
In perl5,
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I am a little confused if the following is valid perl6:
our xsub = { $x };
No. Illegal attempt to assign to a reference. You want aliasing/binding
instead:
our xsub := { $x };
(I like to think of := as assignment
Jim Cromie skribis 2004-11-30 16:53 (-0700):
my @args = @{$template{args}};
my $body = $template{body};
eval sub qq:i{
my ($self, @args) = @_;
$body;
}
Please explain what you want it to do with @args there.
Juerd
Jim Cromie writes:
since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
those which are undefined are preserved literally.
Eeeew. Probably going to shoot this down. But let's see where you're
going
Abhijit Mahabal writes:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I am a little confused if the following is valid perl6:
our xsub = { $x };
No. Illegal attempt to assign to a reference. You want aliasing/binding
instead:
our xsub := { $x };
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:39:29PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I don't know what argumentless shift does now. It probably works on
: @*ARGS when you're in the main program, but inside a sub... I dunno.
: Maybe it shifts from the slurpy array argument. Shifting on the topic
: seems wrong (since
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 06:27:55PM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote:
: Even if he wasn't cackling, I admit to feeling it. I don't even use
: the qx/qq/qw stuff in perl5. I always got by with .
:
: Although I must admit to liking python's C r... meaning
: absolutely raw string (useful for avoiding
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 05:54:45PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
Jim Cromie writes:
since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
those which are undefined are preserved literally.
Eeeew.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:03:38PM -0800, Jon Ericson wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: The p5-to-p6 translator will turn any
:
: while (handle) {...}
:
: into
:
: for @$handle {...}
:
: Including:
:
: while() {...}
:
: to
:
: for @$ {...}
:
: ?
You left
On 11/30/04 6:35 PM, James Mastros wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
* We get the cute, clean and rather more typeable
$varkey1key2[3]key3
Cute maybe (looks like a chain of fish)
The problem with {} for a hash dereference operator is not it's
typeablility, but rather
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:35:37 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The basic problem with «...» is that most of its uses
were turning out to be more useful that the corresponding
In fact, I was thinking about all this on the way home from Seattle
yesterday (a 15-hour drive), and I
On 11/30/04 9:54 PM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
use CGI «:standard»;
[...]
use CGi :standard;
Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
use CGI ':standard';
It really ain't all that broke, is it?
-John
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/30/04 9:54 PM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
use CGI «:standard»;
[...]
use CGi :standard;
Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
use CGI ':standard';
And won't we just be doing:
use CGI :standard;
anyway?
--
Brent 'Dax'
All the cool kids are thinking aloud these days. Why not jump on the
bandwagon?
Larry Wall writes:
* We get the cute, clean and rather more typeable
$varkey1key2[3]key3
It looks like if you shook that up and down a bit, it would break in
half.
I wonder what would happen if we
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:10:48 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
use CGI ':standard';
I normally use qw// when use-ing. *shrug*
And won't we just be doing:
use CGI :standard;
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:10:48 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/30/04 9:54 PM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
use CGI «:standard»;
[...]
use CGi :standard;
Who is doing this? I'm just saying...
use CGI
Jim Cromie writes:
since the qq:X family has recently come up, Id like to suggest another.
qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
those which are undefined are preserved literally.
So then when doing maintenance on some code I can break it by
introducing a
John Siracusa writes:
Call me crazy, but at this point I'm prone to stick with what I've done in
Perl 5 for years:
$var{'key1'}{'key2'}[3]{'key3'}
In which case do that, since it'll still work in Perl 6.
Actually, it works 'better' in Perl 6, since it doesn't mislead in any
way.
I've
50 matches
Mail list logo
