Luke Palmer wrote:
And in fact, one of the big questions that's always in the back of my
mind (that I'm not searching for an answer to, but I'm always observing
for one) is: what do @ and % mean these days?
Another idea: they define the subsystem of the type system that uses
structural subtyping
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 08:58:21AM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: HaloO Larry,
:
: you wrote:
: That would be cool. I'd like to see our community build up a pool of
: theoreticians who are not allergic to the practicalities of building a
: language for ordinary people to think in. It is my
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:14:10AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
So in terms of frequency of use in the English Language, I'd rank things
in the following order:
1) Scalars
2) Sets
3) Arrays
4) Hashes
Perhaps. However, it's fairly easy to use an Array or Hash to represent
a Set, so perhaps it's
HaloO All,
Luke Palmer wrote:
But what are some nice, abstract concepts that these could represent.
One that I've been thinking of is:
* @something is necessarily ordered: there is a well-defined first element
* %something is necessarily a set: adding something twice is always
redundant
Thomas Sandlaß skribis 2005-02-16 18:35 (+0100):
% with . and .«»
% with .{}
. and . imply {}
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 06:35:38PM +0100, Thomas Sandla wrote:
: Each of these comes with a corresponding postcicumfix dereferencer.
: with .()
: @ with .[]
: % with . and .
% with .{} (plus . and . as syntactic sugar)
: Maybe now is the time to figure out what they *do* mean.
:
: I see
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
That would be cool. I'd like to see our community build up a pool of
theoreticians who are not allergic to the practicalities of building a
language for ordinary people to think in. It is my persistent belief
(and fond hope) that theory and practice don't always have to
In my recent unsuccessful attempt to convert junctions into sets with their
own container, perhaps the strongest argument against could be paraphrased
as follows:
Everything about junctions or sets can be represented fully as an object,
and objects are nicely stored in scalars, because it's
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:26 -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
The obvious statement I expect to here is Perl's always had Arrays
and Hashes. While I'm not sure if they were there for Perl 1.0 (I
started w/ Perl 4.xx)
They were.
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
At 01:04 PM 2/15/2005 -0800, chromatic wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 14:26 -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.
Perl isn't a pure object-oriented language.
No
chromatic wrote:
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.
Perl isn't a pure object-oriented language.
Rephrasing my question:
What characteristics would _any_ new structure or class
Rod Adams writes:
So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the
edge for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets
do not.
Nothing. In fact, arrays and hashes aren't atomic or fundamental in any
respect, and the main thing that keeps them there is
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 04:20:28PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: chromatic wrote:
:
: So I'm interested in hearing what pushes Arrays and Hashes over the edge
: for needing their own container and sigil, whereas Junctions/Sets do not.
:
:
:
: Perl isn't a pure object-oriented language.
:
:
Larry wrote:
That's the basic problem with
0 $x 10
after all--the problem with rewriting that as
0 $x and $x 10
is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
entangled so that the always refer to the same abstract value.
That's certainly true. But I think the real
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:13:53PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry wrote:
:
: That's the basic problem with
:
: 0 $x 10
:
: after all--the problem with rewriting that as
:
: 0 $x and $x 10
:
: is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
: entangled so
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 01:13:53PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
0 $x 10
after all--the problem with rewriting that as
0 $x and $x 10
is that it should only work as long as the two values of $x remain
entangled so that the always refer to the same abstract value.
Larry Wall wrote:
But as far as English is concerned, sets are just
objects that have a singular outside and a (potentially) plural inside,
much like almost any other object. At least, that's how concrete
sets work.
Hmm. I would argue that most of the time, when English Speakers use sets
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:01:52PM -0600, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: Uh oh, I hadn't caught that particular nuance. Is it indeed over the
: entire equi-precedential part of the operation, or just over the
: chained operators?
Just the chained operators, I think. For more general expression
18 matches
Mail list logo
