I'd have to agree.
I also think that .foo should always mean $_.foo in methods, without causing
any errors if $?SELF =:= $_ becomes false.
OK. There is a lot of historical threads on the subject and already a lot of
legacy in the Perl6 language.
OK - As I understand it, this is what A12
On Thu, July 14, 2005 10:47 am, Autrijus Tang said:
If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
1. Meaning of $_
.method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.
On 7/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly. The problem is that there are too many viable alternatives,
and half of everyone hates half of the alternatives.
You will know I'm no longer a benevolent dictator when I start to enjoy
watching people squirm every time I change my
Aankhen skribis 2005-07-14 12:39 (+0530):
Well, you've certainly got everyone flustered enough that they'll be
overjoyed even if you pick the alternative they hated the most... :-)
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to
On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to test patience.
If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation, let me just
give up my baby to the other woman by saying:
* It's
If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
1. Meaning of $_
.method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.
2. Topicalization of $?SELF
Neutral on this -- I can
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote:
On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to test patience.
If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation,
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400):
Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we
need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust
@larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent choice that will
serve the community well.
Would this
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
use dot;
it'll always be construed as unambigous. You could go so far as to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:39:44PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
If .method always
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
use dot;
ICK!
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-14 13:39 (-0700):
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous.
Thus it never means $?SELF.foo without $_ being
Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-07-15 1:09 (+0300):
use dot;
If we have pragmas for the 99 Perl6's that every wacko wants to
have, we won't have any readability.
The syntax needs to be consistent and useful, even at the price of
some danger.
Agreed.
I don't want to be using a language
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:09:57AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400):
Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we
need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust
@larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Aankhen wrote:
: I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
: eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
: viable alternative that doesn't involve outlawing it?
Certainly. The problem is that there are too
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-11 18:29 (-0700):
is that we simply outlaw .foo notation at *compile* time in those
scopes where we know (at compile time) that $_ and $?SELF diverge.
In such a scope you *must* specify $_ or $?SELF (or equivalent).
What?
That makes having a default at
I feel a me too post is in order.
I've written code that is 2-3 levels of nested given/when in a
method of an object that wasn't the topic.
I did not feel confused at all, juggling .foo and ./foo, which are
visually distinct, and different to type. They convey a big
difference of meaning, even
On 7/12/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Disallowing .method here means a huge step back in time. Back to
$_.method or $object.method.
[snip]
I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
viable
19 matches
Mail list logo
