On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 08:51:04AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
A prototypeless-function call.
get rid of them all!!
Please no! Anything that makes it harder to write 'quick-and-dirty' scripts
is never going to fly--this is part of what makes Perl special.
Why? I see no problem in
==
I lie: the other reason qr{} currently doesn't behave like that is
that
when we interpolate a compiled regexp into a context that requires
it be
recompiled,
Interpolated qr() items shouldn't be recompiled anyway. They
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:30:22PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Well, this shows that you entirely miss the problem of cryptocontexts.
Context is determined by the "environment" of the operation, not by
the operation. Context is propagated:
the-left-hand-side-of-assignment ---
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:10:49PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
if ( want-{count} 2 ) { return $one, $two }
Will that be interpreted as:
'want'-{count}
want()-{count}
To be consistent, it should mean the first one. That is, the infix
operator - should always autoquote the
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 11:17:40AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
[Cryptocontext is:]
f(3*@a)
would typically be a list context - and suddently instead of 3*(1+$#a)
you get Cmap 3*$_, @a.
This is true, what I would propose is we declare 3*(1+$#a) outmoded and
always have it mean
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
...Do you say you are confused by using vectors (=scalars) instead of
arrays?
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:52:51AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
$x = 3 * @_;
suddently being equivalent to
$x = @_;
does not look very promising...
Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
something?
Yes, the proposal to make
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:01:11AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
It's not just for number-crunchers either. Array notation greatly simplifies
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:41:07AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
a) You can *already* use vectors as scalars in Perl;
That's not what RFC 82 is proposing.
Who cares? This already works...
b) What we are discussing is Perl, not Mathematica, J, PDL, and so
forth. These languages have
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 03:26:39PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
[Aside: Why not make ternary-range operator into 10 :: 20 :: 2 ?]
That would work. My point is that having a stride is a fundamental
feature in other array languages (IDL, Matlab, PDL) and would be
useful in the perl core.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:05:50PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
$_ is not ALLCAPS. @EXPORT_OK should die (see RFC 233). @ISA is on
its way to its grave already, see Cuse base.
Yeah, but you're still just sidestepping my point. Your position seems
poised on the hope that no more special
==
No special UPPERCASE_NAME subroutines
Whoa! What about ALLCAPS variables? Should we axe all of them as well?
They're the exact same idea.
==
What ALLCAPS
==
Please show me how to write:
print STDERR @stuff;
without it, while keeping it a method of the STDERR filehandle, and
without requiring -.
==
Why not use -?
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:22:31PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
What ALLCAPS variables?
Well, @ARGV comes to mind.
I see, and @INC, %INC, %ENV, %SIG.
Maybe we should provide a special namespace for these as well,
besides main::?
This is a nice possible solution. There may be many others
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:26:47PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
$IO::STDERR-print @stuff;
print $IO::STDERR @stuff;
Ok, something here is extreme confused. Is not the second form an
instance of indirect object syntax?
It is not with a bareword at the second place, so is not causing the
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:50:04PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On the other hand, there are only 5 names, not hundreds of them, and
they do not "get in the way", as ADD would do (prohibiting a method
named ADD). So letting them be may be also
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 04:52:12PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Ok, you should clarify this. You're not suggesting that indirect object
syntax be removed. You're suggesting that it should not accept
barewords. These are two separate things.
Agreed. I realized the ambiguity only after I posted
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 06:39:49PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
The presence of a method STORE is visible outside of the module, and
may be required* if the module follows some published (non-Perl) API.
Variables are of different ilk.
I think you're overlooking they can both be equally
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 11:08:18AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
proposes a convenient syntax to slice multi-dimensional arrays;
It is hard to evaluate this proposal without more context. In particular:
- How does it relate to RFC 204? Is it an alternative, or an addition?
204 cannot be
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 07:15:34PM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Why is it important for overloaded objects to be used as array indices?
Overloaded objects should behave the same way as non-objects.
Why
does RFC 204 rule that out? RFC 204 simply specifies that a list reference
as an index
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 11:07:09AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
I repeat: what does
$a[ $ind ]
does if $ind is a (blessed) reference to array (1,1), but behaves as
if it were 11 (due to overloading)?
How $ind is implemented (ie the actual structure that is blessed) does not
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 03:11:47PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
This RFC proposes two-stage autoloading: one stage may be registered
to act when the symbol is encountered at compile time, the other
when the subroutine is called. Autoloading on the second
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 11:12:28AM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
Of course, we need group names (trivial), and group temporaries.
I needed the latter to define a generic pattern to match quoted strings:
you need to store the starting quote somewhere to find the ending quote,
but I didn't want
23 matches
Mail list logo
