snip
sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
What if, instead of cramming everything
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:21:10 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
What if, instead of cramming everything into scalar to the point
where it loses its value as a data type that magically converts
between numeric and string, as needed, we undo the Great Perl5
Dilution and undecorate references.
I really need to spell-check better.
Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
Undecorated is for function calls and methods. And built-ins, of course.
--
Bart.
Bart Lateur wrote:
David L. Nicol wrote:
we undo the Great Perl5
Dilution and undecorate references.
Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
So what you're really saying is that references
On Wed, 9 May 2001 09:47:56 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
but their own type. Thus they
[on David Nicol's thought that maybe references should be treated
differently than other scalar data]
But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Perhaps it's a mistake that Perl treats numbers and strings the
same. Perhaps $ should be broken out into two prefixes: S for
strings,
At 04:02 PM 5/9/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
What he is proposing is that Perl6 would have a kind of variable that
doesn't have a prefix. That isn't perlish IMO.
Sure it is. DEC BASIC let you do that (drop prefixes on variables declared
with types) and stealing from other languages is very
Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
Hungarian notation is any of a variety of standards for organizing
a computer program by selecting a schema for naming your variables
so that their type is readily available to someone familiar with
the notation.
I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
until
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring that,
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
Several perl ports, and at least one book, use a shiny ball as a
symbol.
It took me a bit of thinking before I realized what this shiny ball
represents. Odd.
Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a grain
of
snip
sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show type, though not
I've often thought about trademarking a Shiny Ball (Perl) and an
oyster/clam/mussel shell with association to the Perl language. The first
thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
is. But, I'd have licensed it to the community openly after an initial snit.
I
/me ponders the use of a cat in that context... Furball?
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
oyster/clam/mussel shell with association to the Perl language. The first
thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
is.
I think all it would demonstrate is how flawed the copyright system is.
But
And there was me thinking the shiny ball must be a camel dropping
At 04:06 PM 5/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
oyster/clam/mussel shell with association to the Perl language. The first
thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
is.
I think all it would
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 08:21:10PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
What if, instead of cramming everything into scalar to the point
where it loses its value as a data type that magically converts
between numeric and string, as needed, we undo the Great Perl5
Dilution and undecorate references.
David Grove wrote:
$ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a multiplicity of pairs
with likely offspring as a result. ;-)
Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
by the semantics of its indexing.
Which is why I argued, some time back, in favor of conflating
On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:06:45 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
At that
point, Hungarian notation fell apart for me. Its strict use adds (IMO) as
much confusion as MicroSoft's redefinition of C, with thousands of
typedefs representing basic types (LPSTR and HWND come to mind as the
most common).
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:51:14AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
by the semantics of its indexing.
Bah. You should try teaching this stuff! :)
A scalar's a thing. An array's a line of things. A hash is a bag of
pairs of things.
All
But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show type, though not in a traditional sense.
Organization - type is semantic oddery, but they do keep our heds
straight
about what's in the variable.
Sure. But my point was that Perl's use of $ isn't Hungarian
-Original Message-
From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
David Grove wrote:
$ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a
multiplicity of pairs
with
I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
my $foo;
my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
This sort of thing will only get easier in Perl 6, when people can pull
in their own grammatical rules to enable them
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
my $foo;
my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
I tried working on a pythonish module built around
David Grove writes:
: Probably rehashing (no pun intended) a lost cause, but this sounds logical
: to me, if you're referring to something similar to PHP's Array['text']
: notation. I.e.,
:
: $array[1]
: $hash{'one'}
:
: becoming
:
: @group['one']
Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you
[...] subject to ethnic
cleansing. Culture wars arise spontaneously, but that should not deter
us from enabling people to build new cultures. [...]
Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
now?
};P
Core Perl is probably trademarked to Sun Microsystems. ;-)
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 -
Simon Cozens wrote:
A scalar's a thing.
Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
--
John Porter
David Grove wrote:
something similar to PHP's Array['text'] notation.
(I think awk, but whatever...)
my @collection is associative;
since these will become actual objects in Perl 6,
*how* they are indexed could be a simple flag
Or, in fact, any user-defined scheme.
The
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
A scalar's a thing.
Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Yes, but as Larry pointed out. Knowing if the index is to be treated
as a number or a string has some advantages for optimization
Graham.
David Grove writes:
Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it
A. C. Yardley writes:
taken off list. (I don't mean to arrogant the decisional authority
Erh, make that arrogate ...
/acy
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
A scalar's a thing.
Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Indeed, hashes have scalar keys. Did you not realise that I conveyed
the same information in amazingly less confusing terminology?
Again,
As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, Horse hooey!*
Camel cookies.
;-)
These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
profit. They
At 07:43 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: We'd want an alternative opcode running loop for all this, and it could
: easily enough check times, as could special opcodes. Long-running codes
: could also check at reasonable breakpoints. (Still in trouble with C
:
James Mastros [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Tying Overloading
Helgason writes:
: I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
: more acceptable to the world of javacsharpbasic droids.
David Grove wrote:
...
This is frightening me too. I really don't like the thought of
$i = 1.0;
$i += 0.1 if $INC;
$i .= Foo, Inc.;
(or more specifically a one line version that converts several times for a
single statement)
becoming
my str $i = 1.0;
if($INC) {
Will it be possible to define pointer classes, a la C++, in a
relatively smooth manner?
That is, an object R has methods of its own as well as methods
belonging to the referred to object?
E_G: print $R.toString is a reference to $R-toString;
Or some such? The notion of $R.getData.toString is
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:05:48PM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
Will it be possible to define pointer classes, a la C++, in a
relatively smooth manner?
That is, an object R has methods of its own as well as methods
belonging to the referred to object?
Sounds you're looking for automatic
Bart Lateur wrote:
So what you're saying is that references aren't really scalars,
but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
But we've sort of run out of possible prefixes.
that is my interpretation of the p4-p5 decision to make references
fit within the scalar type; which
41 matches
Mail list logo
