On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
compile time, but often not.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:17:50PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
:
: Lazily, for the most part. In
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
:
: Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
: compile time, but often not.
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
with initializer so one could write:
my $a, $b, $c;
instead of
my ($a, $b, $c);
Most people use scoping functions as the top most function of the
corresponding statement AST
Stphane Payrard writes:
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
with initializer so one could write:
my $a, $b, $c;
instead of
my ($a, $b, $c);
Hmm, but that kills the Perl 5 ability to do concise inline
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
with initializer so one could write:
my $a, $b, $c;
instead of
my ($a, $b, $c);
Too bad that in
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Anyway, I don't profess to have thought deeply about type inferencing.
But I do know that I don't want to turn Perl 6 into ML just yet...
Larry
Speaking of ML, it appears to me that Perl6 rules are a mechanism that
can act very
Luke Palmer wrote:
We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
parentheses in the standard swap:
$x, $y = $y, $x;
$x, $y == $y, $x;
-- Rod Adams
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:09:24PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
SP == Stéphane Payrard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
SP On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used
LP == Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LP Rod Adams writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
parentheses in the standard swap:
$x, $y = $y, $x;
$x, $y == $y, $x;
LP Heh, oh yeah. I guess I wasn't so
Luke Palmer wrote:
Now we just need to determine if 'my' can leave its post as a unary declarator.
Don't see why not... If you ever need it unary, you can just put the ()
back in.
The question becomes which is more common:
Scoping a single variable in a list context, or scoping several
Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
Stop misusing y'all before this Texan has to hurt you.
And y'all wonder why we hate you damn yankees. Can't even speak properly
up there.
:-)
We should instead have a list
RA == Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RA Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
RA Stop misusing y'all before this Texan has to hurt you.
RA And y'all wonder why we hate you damn yankees. Can't even
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
RA == Rod Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
RA Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
RA Stop misusing y'all before this Texan has to hurt
14 matches
Mail list logo
