on the weekly
discussions, just report on what you've released. Much like the old
sub-lists would step away to discuss some particular topic head-to-toe,
p6d should discuss every topic toe-to-toe. It'll evolve, but until
then, there'll be the occasional nudge. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock
into Perl6 OO, but we may need
to request some preliminary decisions before then, because the
implications are substantial.
and again...
Let's open these for discussion. Questions/proposals/issues, anyone?
and again... what's the scope of p6d, and how does it differ from p6l?
--
Bryan C
, semantics, implementation impacts, ideological
ax grinding, etc. so that p6l can refer people to the old arguments instead
of wasting ever more time on them.
Yeah, I wanted the same thing with PDD 0. :-) Hopefully this will turn
out better. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
extrapolate.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 14:41, Larry Wall wrote:
And maybe:
A bitwise operator is just a logic operator scoped to a set of bits.
Hypo-operators. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock(gtemail.net|raba.com)
to match one thing and one thing
only. Whether that will be an issue with variable-width characters in a
class is largely going to rely on the semantics that are dictated.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock(gtemail.net|raba.com)
, given a for loop with a my, how sould perl52perl6
: deal with it?
Probably just by slapping an extra set of curlies around it.
Umm. didn't you say bare blocks were going away?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
://dev.perl.org/perl6/status then I would most
appreciate it. :-)
If there aren't any objections, I'll add this as a TODO along with the
weekly summary. [ Which I haven't done for last week yet. :-( ]
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
as a part of the name.
For these people, it isn't just Perl - it's Perl 5. Which Perl 6 is not.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
And should follow-ups to this go, perhaps, to [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
If we were to discuss *why* it's good for non-professional folks, probably.
I'll let someone else cross-post if they feel it's necessary.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 20 January 2002 21:00, Damian Conway wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock asked:
Since the parentheses are no longer required, will the expressions
lose or retain their own scope level? (I'm assuming that whatever
rule applies, it will hold true if you do elect to use parantheses
anyway
, grep, and
sort. The rest was was simply an extension to the implausable end.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are spontaneously generating! ;-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
;
}
}
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
LAST $coderef;
or would I simply wrap it?
LAST {
$coderef;
}
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
expect). I'm sure that would hold true for any amount
of change, so I want to be prepared with the rationale and explanations.
Thanks for answering my queries.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
required, will the expressions lose or
retain their own scope level? (I'm assuming that whatever rule applies, it
will hold true if you do elect to use parantheses anyway.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
' construct.
loop my $x=0; $x 100; $x++ {
...
}
?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
$_ is the localizer
warn(No value) when undef;
when /aaa/ { break if 1; ... }
when /bbb/ { break if 2; ... }
when /ccc/ { break if 3; ... }
}
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
, or a user-defined one. I simply picked on
do {} and BEGIN {} because they were the examples given in the Apocalypse.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
of it in the
archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Or any other perl6 list.
Don't tell me that is normal.
It's a worry. Also odd is that Slashdot hasn't picked it up yet.
Developers' section.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Executes on normal exit of the current block
UNDOExecutes on un-normal exit of the current block
That matches my list.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
chance of mistakes. If anyone spots any mistakes in it,
let me know.
Well, I can't get it to run :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
looked good, but I'll do a more
thorough paper trace when a little more coherent. (At least I was able to
mostly understand what you were doing.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
A caret on a standard US qwerty keyboard is shift-6'. (In reponse to your
complaint (a), about the underscore requiring the shift key.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 04 October 2001 12:18 am, Damian Conway wrote:
** Binary //
Was a test for definedness *and* truthfulness considered?
Err... the || operator *is* a test for that.
Hmmph. So it is. All those wasted keystrokes that I'll never recover...
how depressing.
--
Bryan C
.
Others would include abs, floor, ceil, round, mod - don't know if those are
basic or fancy to you. I suspect you may have those already
The question arises what do you do as its opcode, and what languages
features can be a series of opcodes.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Are there going to be string ops as well, or would add and mul work on
string registers?
Yes.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 07 September 2001 12:56 am, Ken Fox wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Generically speaking, modules aren't going to be running amok and making
a mess of your current lexical scope - they'll be introducing, possibily
repointing, and then possibly deleting specific symbols
How much
=$_} = '/option'), @ary;
That's not really joining.
or is better to stay like this :
my $select;
map { $select .= qq{option value=$_$_/option} } @ary;
Definitely.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
doesn't exists yet
in the current lexical scope. If you want to mess with your parent's scope,
you have to mess with it directly, not indirectly.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
);
bar($x);
}
# The original pragma's scope has ended... why should we be using the
# same $x? We shouldn't. The $x was created in the inner scope, and
# we're back to ours
%MY:: access the pad, not the variable.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
My $x container now contains a ref to the $z container.
($x = \$z, $y = \$x, $z = 2)
My $z container now contains 3.
($x = \$z, $y = \$x, $z = 3, or $$x = 3, $$y = \$z, $z = 3, or
$$x = 3, $$$y = 3, $z = 3)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
are heaviliy
restricted to the current scope level. Whatever you used to be able to do
with globals, you'll now be able to do with lexicals. You just lose the
globalness of it.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmm is this such a good thing?
my $a = 0;
GORK: while( 1 ) {
print Rin ;
GORK: if ( 1 ) {
print Tin ;
goto GORK if $b ^= 1;
print \n;
next GORK;
}
}
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
differentiations may seem pedantic. Thank you for your continuing patience
- if my madness were an object, there'd be a method to it.
As always, constructive criticism is welcome.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 03 September 2001 11:56 pm, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
The third value is a peek value. Do the runtime checking, but don't do
any magic variable stuff. As a matter of fact, don't run any user-code at
all. Simply return a true or false value if the arguments *would* match
with auto-backsearch capabilities. Or
something.
Other than the obvious run-time requirements of this, what's wrong with
simply looking in the current pad, seeing it's not there, then looking in
the previous pad...? (Assuming you know the variable by name)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 04 September 2001 09:09 pm, Damian Conway wrote:
A Cwhen is a statement, just as an Cif or a Cwhile is a statement.
Okay, then I simply need to rethink/redefine how I'm defining a statement,
(which is currently in terms of the statement separator).
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL
On Tuesday 04 September 2001 10:10 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 08:59 PM 9/4/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Yes, this is akin to redeclaring every lexical variable every time you
introduce a new scope. Not pretty, I know. But if you want run-time
semantics with compile-time resolution
to work out...
Unseparated bare code blocks for () prototypes come to mind.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PMC? (A list of pointers to PMCs?)
Or, to think of it another way, how are you going to pass two scalars, or an
array of two scalars, to a sub with *no* prototype?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 03 September 2001 10:46 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 10:32 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly
handle that.
Ah, but calling in the first way
differently. Multiple dispatch on functions
could alter our approach to the third. Direct calls have already been
attested to at compile time. The call has just changed...
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. I shall make
that change.
BCW Flow Control Expressions
BCW A. goto
BCW B.
B. was intentionally left blank.
I got tired. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
] http://www.mail-archive.com/perl5-porters@perl.org/msg12899.html
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 02 September 2001 08:18 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2001 at 07:47:37PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
The following parses, but doesn't do anything, including warn.
my $a = sub ($) { print };
Warning
to express the expression.
It's the same number of characters. How can it be more convenient?
You only have to manipulate the shift key once! ;-)
I'm waiting for someone to say that in tri-state logic, '!' != '='
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
directly within a 'given'
construct.
6. Subroutines are covered in depth in a separate document.
7. An anonymous subroutine is technically an expression.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 31 August 2001 01:13 am, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:45:03AM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Access to the source code.
Already got that.
Not if we don't have the source. Or perhaps this will be the way we do it.
Dunno. Perl Bytecode has a section
that compiled a particular unit may
be nice, although most likely unnecessary. Although, with the exception of
endianess and native extensions, the bytecode is supposed to be the same.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. But there's probably no reason that $*CODE couldn't
specifically refer to the entire file.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
' vs 'our'. 'local' makes sense with its current
behavior, but I'd personally rather it were consistent, too.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[; expr_n+1 ... ] [;]
}
[ LABEL: ] given ( expr_1 ) {
...
block
}
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is defined by the IRS attribute of a filehandle.)
# Can I define something that says to chomp the values entered
# into the hash? The keys?
# What if the hash is tied to a filehandle?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
should change for
Perl 6.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 30 July 2001 05:37 am, Me wrote:
In a nutshell, you are viewing:
foo if bar;
as two statements rather than one, right?
Yep. The 5.7 docs explain it rather well, I think. Too bad I didn't read
them until *after* I had posted and taken off for work.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
On Monday 30 July 2001 07:29 am, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:36:43 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
$x = ($default,$a,$b)[$b=$a]; # Much like I did before
Note that
$x = cond? a : b
does lazy evaluation, i.e. the value for a or for b is only fetched when
it's actually
)[$b=$a]; # Much like I did before
($x) = sort { $a = $b or $default } ($a,$b);
# Since = and cmp were created more-or-less specifically for sort
The former is faster than the latter, but neither are as quick as the more
conventional structures.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
they are.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday 02 June 2001 11:21 am, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Friday 01 June 2001 11:06 pm, David L. Nicol wrote:
having wantarray return the number of items needed, or -1 for
all of them, would work very nicely for user-written partial returners.
Did anyone RFC that?
RFC 21's
perl parsers lying around their code base?
Other impacts:
- Cuse semantics would have to be changed. Or whatever the parser
identifier will be. You'll need to differentiate between an exact match and
a minimum match.
use perl 6.0;
use = perl 6.0; # or use perl = 6.0?
--
Bryan C
you posted it? For shame! ;-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:17, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-)
Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6
interpreter in Perl 5 for testing. We have
be
%foo = ( foo = 1, bar = 1, '=' = 'baz' )
But I like the concept of a quote hash.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
double duty in the language. And its visually
easy to spot the difference between the two constructs.
'.' is already, to some extent, space sensitive anyway, because it has
to pull double duty as a decimal point, as well.
'4.5' (4.5) vs '4 .5' (45) vs '4. 5' (missing operator)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
, easy to read,
compatible with perl5..
I'm not sure that that was the point I was trying to make.
If nothing else, the '.' would then be responsible for *three*
different actions.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
simplified, if desired. To
invert the behavior (simplification first), you'd still need a way to
GWBrecomplexify/GWB it, for the folks who need a fetch every time.
Of course, we may not be able to say that, in which case hints of any sort
are a Good Thing.
Yes. One way or t'other.
--
Bryan
;it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
given in the
setup box? If you'd like to turn off the voice, click this box. Nothing
else is sound dependent. Somehow I think there's a lesson to be learned
here.
/sidetrack
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't
he
middle of the road, but as arguments like this have continued, I've moved
wy to the minimalist's side. Hey, overhaul Perl to your heart's
content so that you're able to do x, y, and z; just so long as Perl itself
doesn't do x, y, and z.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
makng a clearer
delineation and how and why and when these work are in order.
Particularly once attributes come out in full force, which will also bind
more tightly than , or =. Simply offloading and compounding the problem
isn't a viable solution.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
($foo),local($"),our($bar),my($baz)) = @_;
;-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ept for module developers.
So you want to force people to adhere to strict rules, but it would be too
onerous to force them to adhere to strict rules?
(Personally, I don't care about the extra warnings, as long as I can shut
them up. That doesn't really change perl's behavior. Forced strictne
resource reallocation? (Not that this addresses the remainder of your
post.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
be if A needed to be destroyed before B, then B
wouldn't/shouldn't be marked for GC until after A was destroyed. It might
take several sweeps to clean an entire dependency tree, unfortunately.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
Oh, yes, sorting by the number spelled out...
That should throw several cultures for a loop.
Four and twenty blackbirds, baked 'e' and 'pi'.
Ghod knows how this GST would have you pronounce 5.6.0, 'five
and six
and oh'?
The computer kulture has its own rules for written and spoken grammar.
'this or that' is less common
for file tests.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
, is a good reason to keep the current behavior.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
to find your
solution. (Particularly with vtables behind them.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
existing modules that
provide this type of interface.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
my int ($x, $y), char $z; # mix classes
my int ($x, $y) :64bit, char $z :long; # and attrs
nit
my (int ($x, $y), char $z);
my (int ($x, $y) :64bit, char $z :long);
/nit
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
One of the big draws (to me) for URI support isn't even mentioned in
the RFC, although it was discussed following v1, and that is adding
DWIMmery to the open to support more than files and pipes. (We
recently added URI support to one of our projects for this reason.)
-- Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
, it could also be just as easily rolled in, although
I think that might be counter-intuitive.
-- Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
very meaningful anyway, now do I?
All I care about is the underlying functionality.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
have been some confusion in the default settings. The
implicit arg would be 'on' by default. To turn it off would require:
no implict arg;
Use could then turn it back on again.)
Trust me, I've no desire of removing the features that won me over in
the first place.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
. We're going to have to
think of a way to consistently say "do this in my caller's lexical
scope" without it becoming a nasty upvar hell.
Not that it adds much information, but this is the lament of RFC 40.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
of OO work (esp. on the Mac) tend to do this?
The first thing they do in their application is instantiate an
application (mainly, itself, without the application instantiation) and
run it.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
hing similar to "way way way".
I, personally, prefer the Stoogian "Whoop whoop whoop!"
Although it's hard to stop at three.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
(or
because!) of our efforts here. We can make it easier for the users to
adapt, but Perl will need to continue to evolve, as well.
(As spoken by a one-eyebrow, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
are spawned. You can only express the
opinion that foo is not bar and never should be so many times.
(To be fair, I collapse my lists, and don't pay attention to what is
posted to what list.)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
understand wanting to present the user with a common,
multi-platform, consistent date/time interface, but I don't understand
extending that to the internals.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
This all seems like a lot of work for (what I would consider to be) the
common, default case - wanting to open a file native to my OS, on a
filesystem seen by my OS. Or am I clue-lossy again?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
onstructor
can take the strftime string for use as the default scalar output?
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ext";
$line_mode = taste FOO, "line";
spank FOO, text = $text_mode, line = $line_mode;
while (FOO)
{
# Reads with the right disciplines now
}
open FOO, "frozen_foo", :bin;
spank FOO, block = 48, mod = \thaw_struct;
while (FOO)
{
# Do something with the object that is $_
}
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
