Alexey Trofimenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficulties with
recognizing C:: as part of C... ?? ... :: ... and C:: as
module sigil? Does it involve some DWIM?
Among other things, the ?? will tip off the parser that it's looking
for an expression
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
--
Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
figure out went wrong!
Sarcasm is an ugly thing.
One thing that I just thought of that could be intersting:
$foo = 'a' or 'b'
My thought was that
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
The overloading of 'or' there is
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
You're assuming that Ceither in a ternary operator. It
could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. Cimplies).
We could actually define ?? as a binary
On 24 Aug 2004, at 22:14, Aaron Sherman wrote:
You don't HAVE to use auto-topicalization. You CAN always write it
long-hand if you find that confusing:
for @words - $word {
given ($chars($word) 70) - $toolong {
say abbreviate($word) ?? $word;
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
You're assuming that Ceither in a ternary operator. It
could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be
Juerd writes:
Where :: (in a module name) can be used, an operator could have been
used.
How is $foo??Bar::Baz::Quux parsed?
$foo ?? Bar::Baz::Quux; # error, :: expected
Indeed, this is illegal:
Bar::Baz :: Quux.new;
No whitespace allowed.
I hope it's an error, although some
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and bug-fixes it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous. I'd
even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
to the troublesome double-usage of C::
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having to
use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having
to use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it stands out as much as
it should.
I hate to reply to my own message, but...
How about
$foo??split()!!0;
for a touch of craziness. Or is !! not usable? Actually, just
Aaron Sherman writes:
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and bug-fixes it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: It would be nice if rand behaved a bit more sanely in Perl 6. I can
: understand the reasoning for making rand 0 produce between 0 and 1, but
: that doesn't mean I have to like it.
What makes you think there was
Matthew Walton wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
I suspect there's an argument that [0,0) ought to be considered undef
(which would conveniently numerify to 0 with an optional warning).
In the absence of a paradox value, undef would be fine there I think :-)
Too bad we don't have NaRN (Not a Random
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
The one in Perl 5 that stands out most was the cause for the only patch
I ever sent to p5p: the rand function. rand $x will give you a
uniformly distributed random number in [0, $x) for any $x EXCEPT 0. If
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: It would be nice if rand behaved a bit more sanely in Perl 6. I can
: understand the reasoning for making rand 0 produce between 0 and 1, but
: that doesn't mean I have to like it.
What makes you think there was any reasoning
Matt Diephouse writes:
use CGI qw(:standard);
my $foo = Bar-new(
name = Baz,
value = param('baz'),
something = 'else'
);
See the problem?
Yikes, yeah, that seems so innocent.
Cparam uses Creturn;. In this example, it's called in list
context.
Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-08-19 9:35 (-0400):
But I came across this code at work this week:
use CGI qw(:standard);
my $foo = Bar-new(
name = Baz,
value = param('baz'),
something = 'else'
);
Ouch. You have foo-bar-baz code *at work*? :)
See the
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:52:18 +0200, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ouch. You have foo-bar-baz code *at work*? :)
Unfortunately, some of the code here is much worse than that.
In fact, this was anticipated and the doesn't-exist case is explicitly
documented as:
If the parameter does not
Matt Diephouse writes:
The point that it's documented for Cparam and for Creturn doesn't
remove the fact that while this DWIM the majority of the time, it can
be the cause of a subtle bug. I'm sure many people don't know about
the DWIM behavior. Or aren't actively aware of it.
As is the case
On Aug 19, 2004, at 9:41 AM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
If the parameter does not exist at all, then param() will return
undef in a scalar context, and the empty list in a list context.
Sure enough. And I've even read a large percentage of the (unwieldy)
CGI.pm docs. But I was using Cparam as
On Aug 19, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
First off, in Perl 6, I *think* that that C = will enforce a
scalar context (it's a tuple operator, last I recall).
W00t!
Second, in Perl 5 it should not be hard to identify such situations for
warning purposes. C = may be a synonym for C,, but
24 matches
Mail list logo
