Ed Peschko wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
I think decent formatting would make it clearer:
fora; b
- $x is rw; y {
$x = $y[5];
}
But this isn't very scalable:
Sure it is. You just have to think more two-dimensionally...
for a; b; c; d; e
- $a_variable1 is
Damian Conway writes:
BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
Of course, I can't speak for Larry, but in the end I concluded
that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) for @a - $x ; @b - $y { ... }
===
2) for @a ; @b - $x ; $y { ... }
You've got it! Semicolon naturally breaks things apart, not groups them
together!
--
Anything to do with HTML processing /usually/ involves a pact
with an evil supernatural
* Ed Peschko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 07:19]:
[...]
for @a - $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw;
@b - $b_variable is rw;
@c - $c_variable is rw;
@d - $d_variable is rw;
@e - $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw;
{
}
is much, *much* clearer. IMO
On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
Of course, I can't speak for Larry,
In a different thread, Buddha Buck wrote the following code snippet:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
And I finally had to whimper publicly about this.
I've been lurking around the P6 process since the very beginning of the
RFC process. I saw the new 'for' syntax come out, and
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
if the above were just written:
for (a;b) - ($x is rw; $y) { $x = $y[5] };
Would that suffice to make it clearer?
Michael Lazzaro writes:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
if the above were just written:
for (a;b) - ($x is rw; $y) { $x =
Dave Storrs writes:
is a Bad Thing and is going to cause a lot of bugs. I have the following
problems with it:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
1) This is (AFAIK) the ONLY place in Perl where a semicolon that
is not enclosed in parens is used for anything other
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
if the above were just written:
for (a;b) - ($x is rw; $y)
Dave Storrs wrote:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
if the above were just written:
for (a;b) - ($x is rw; $y) { $x = $y[5] };
Would that suffice to make it clearer?
Actually, yes, that would solve everything
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for @a - $x; @b - $y { $x = $y[5] };
Yes!!!
(Except for the ''. That's feigen-ugly.
*shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
stands: is rw is too long for something we're
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
: for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
:
: I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
: if the above were just written:
:
: for (a;b) - ($x is
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
Dave Storrs wrote:
Actually, yes, that would solve everything for me...and I knew
this was valid syntax.
So is this vertical layout, which I think will become fairly standard
amongst those who care about readability:
for a ; b
Wednesday 30 October 2002 22:08, Michael Lazzaro escribió:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
for a; b - $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be
solved if the above were just written:
for (a;b) -
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
Then let's make the parens required when there is more than one
stream.
Sane people will put them there anyway, and it will force the rest of
us to behave.
It also solves the ;-not-a-line-seperator problem.
-angel
Yes! Thank you, this
Dave Storrs writes:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
Then let's make the parens required when there is more than one
stream.
Sane people will put them there anyway, and it will force the rest of
us to behave.
It also solves the ;-not-a-line-seperator problem.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
*shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
stands: is rw is too long for something we're going to do fairly often.
I am not so sure. If I look back through a lot of my code, there are more cases
where I use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes:
minimal exception to remember
Another one for my irregularity check, thanks! :)
--
Though spring is here, to me it's still September,
That September, in the rain
- Dinah Washington, The USENET Anthem.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Graham Barr wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
*shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
stands: is rw is too long for something we're going to do fairly often.
I am not so sure. If I look back through a lot of
20 matches
Mail list logo
