Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-21 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: And FWIW, I kinda like $ even with the over-done :-) me too! Michele -- [...] is like requiring to play tennis with a square ball. Which admittedly makes the game more interesting. - Giuseppe Oblomov Bilotta in comp.text.tex (edited)

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-21 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote: Except that only one of these variables' meanings is actually associated with subs. And I kind of like to read the C? as which. So if we actually make use of our sigils, we get possibilities like this: [snip useful examples] at first I didn't get what you

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-21 Thread Michele Dondi
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote: with a named abstraction is not terribly useful. The whichness of C? happens subconsciously, whereas having a named hash forces As I said in my other mail, the more I think of this the more it seems to me to be reasonable and even natural. It's which?-ness,

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 11:45:55AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote: : at first I didn't get what you mean, but now I must admit it does make : sense and looks smart too. I can be very persuasive when I'm right, as well as the rest of the time. :-) Larry

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Richard Proctor
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote: $?fileWhich file am I in? $?lineWhich line am I at? $?package Which package am I in? @?package Which packages am I in? $?module Which module am I in? @?module Which modules am I in? $?class Which class am I in?

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Thomas Seiler
Richard Proctor wrote: Maybe there are some more... $?perl Which version of perl am I in $?parrot Which version of parrot is perl running on $?parrot_runloop Which runloop is running ? etc... And relating to the outside world $?os Which operating system am I operating on $?pid

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Except that only one of these variables' meanings is actually associated with subs. And I kind of like to read the C? as which. So if we actually make use of our sigils, we get possibilities like this: $?fileWhich file am I

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:41:37AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: : Maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly, but is this really that useful to : have such shortcuts? I presume that there will be alternate ways to : access the same information (like maybe a special hash : (%*WHICH{'package'} and

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:25:08AM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote: : Maybe there are some more... : : $?perlWhich version of perl am I in It would be Which version of Perl am I compiled with? But $?perlversion would much clearer. I suppose the same could be said for $?subname. : And

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 11:59:09AM +0200, Thomas Seiler wrote: : $?parrot Which version of parrot is perl running on $?parrotversion would be which version of parrot we were compiled on. $*parrotversion would be which version of parrot we are running on. : $?parrot_runloop Which runloop

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Richard Proctor
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote: : $?osWhich operating system am I operating on Again, which OS am I compiled on, or at best, which OS does the compiler think I'm compiling for, in the case of cross-compilation. Therefore should: $?os Be which operating system it is being

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:35:46PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote: : Therefore should: : : $?os Be which operating system it is being compiled on : $*os Be which operating system it is being executed on : : Some of the other special variables may have a similar dual personality. Presumably.

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Austin Hastings
Larry Wall wrote: On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:35:46PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote: : Therefore should: : : $?os Be which operating system it is being compiled on : $*os Be which operating system it is being executed on : : Some of the other special variables may have a similar dual

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread David Wheeler
On Sep 17, 2004, at 12:06 PM, Larry Wall wrote: I originally made them lowercase because they were $=line variables and I didn't want them to conflict with POD names that are typically uppercase, and use of an C= secondary sigil for POD is a no-brainer. s/uppercase/lowercase/ ? David

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:16:24PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote: : For that matter, what's wrong with $__ as a sigil, as in $__LINE__, et : al. It combines the you can use it as a variable with the leading : underscores are magic memes, and doesn't impose any wierd learning curve. I am unlikely

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 12:19:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote: : On Sep 17, 2004, at 12:06 PM, Larry Wall wrote: : : I originally made them lowercase because they were $=line variables : and I didn't want them to conflict with POD names that are typically : uppercase, and use of an C= secondary

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-17 Thread David Wheeler
On Sep 17, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote: No, not the verbs, the uppercase nouns we see like =begin COMMENT ... =end COMMENT Oh, I wasn't sure, because in the Synopses you've been using propercase for =head1 POD. But maybe it's not the subjects of the header and item type verbs

Still about subroutines...

2004-09-16 Thread Michele Dondi
Speaking of subs, and especially recursive ones which have been mentioned en passant earlier, I have another question of mine: I know that in the vast majority of cases this won't be useful in any way, but in the body of a (possibly anonymous) sub/block, will there be some sort of identifier to

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-16 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:02:18AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: : The new alternative is MY.sub. I suppose that could return the current : actual sub, so if you're using a pointy sub you have to say MY.block or : something. But it's one of those two. Or something resembling them. I'm still pining

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-16 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:07:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently came available. :-) Speaking of which ... why is it that $?foo and ?foo became

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-16 Thread Juerd
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-09-16 13:44 (-0500): Speaking of which ... why is it that $?foo and ?foo became $foo and foo respectively? perlcheat is one page. I hope that when Perl 6 is around, I can summarize all uses of and on one page. The second page will be for the rest of the

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-16 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: : Larry Wall writes: : I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something : complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently : came available. :-) : : Hmm, $ is pretty good, and

Re: Still about subroutines...

2004-09-16 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 01:44:03PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: : On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:07:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something : complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently : came