Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider this test in Perl:
if \0 {...}
Its equivalent in C is this:
if () ...
That can't be right. If anything it's got the two languages
flipped, but that's still not quite right either. Apples and
orange
On -1 xxx -1, it was written:
I have a wish for Perl6. I think it would be nice to have the possibility
for more than one modifier after a simple statement.
Larry's ruled that it's one statement modifier per statement, period. For
anything else you'd need to modify the grammar. (Which won't
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:16:11PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
But anyway, if you still want to be old school about it, then you'll end
up not caring about the scope of your $i. Really you won't. And you'll
be happy that it was kept around for you once you decide you want to
know the value
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That all has to be looked at anyway. What does 5 mean when you
pass it to substr, anyway?
I was just going to ask about substrings, and then didn't because I
figured that had been hashed out already and I'd missed it...
(I've been trying to make it
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: You could coin the abbreviation ligs, for Language Independent
: Graphemes. Then some ingenious rascal can create a pragma or whatever
: that allows $str.b, $str.c, $str.g, and $str.l for fans of terseness.
Except
Jonadab The Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It would be possible to have right-associative operators (that bind at
least more tightly than comma and possibly very tightly) and convert a
number to one of these objects, so that we can do stuff like this:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: You could coin the abbreviation ligs, for Language Independent
: Graphemes. Then some ingenious rascal can create a pragma or whatever
: that allows $str.b, $str.c, $str.g, and
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
AFAIR, I've seen in some Apocalypse that lexical scope boundaries will be
the same as boundaries of block, in which lexical variable was defined.
Yep. Except in the case of routine parameters, but that's nothing new.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:10:03AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
AFAIR, I've seen in some Apocalypse that lexical scope boundaries will be
the same as boundaries of block, in which lexical variable was defined.
Yep.
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object
forest, like Inform has, where irrespective of class any given
object can have up to one parent at any given time,
Multiple parent classes, yes.
Not remotely the same thing.
Parent
Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
substr($string, 2 but graphemes, 4 but bytes);
I think but even makes sense, if substr defaults to something.
Juerd
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
substr($string, 2 but graphemes, 4 but bytes);
I think but even makes sense, if substr defaults to something.
I think mixing
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
substr($string, 2 but graphemes, 4 but bytes);
I think but even makes sense, if
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
substr($string, 2 but
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(I've been trying to make it assume some implicit unit based on the
current lexical scope's Unicode level, but issues remain.) We have
magical string positions that have different numeric values
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object
forest, like Inform has, where irrespective of class any given
object can have up to one parent at any given time,
Multiple
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
of course, I just mutter.. new Cfor is very good, and in special
cases, when simple incrementing-decrementing isn't what I want, I can
write my own iterator (btw, in which apocalypse I can find how to
write iterators in perl6?) with my own custom very special
Austin Hastings writes:
Of course, how hard can it be to implement the .parent property?
You'll want it on just about everything, though, so the change will
probably be to CORE::MetaClass. It still shouldn't be that hard to do.
Maybe Luke Palmer will post a solution... :-)
use
Luke Palmer writes:
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
of course, I just mutter.. new Cfor is very good, and in special
cases, when simple incrementing-decrementing isn't what I want, I can
write my own iterator (btw, in which apocalypse I can find how to
write iterators in perl6?) with my own
19 matches
Mail list logo
