Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
to mean fall through to the next case. I don't think
this is wise, since we'll often want to use loop controls
within a switch statement. Instead, I think we should
use skip to do that. (To be read as Skip to the next
statement.)
I
I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a
deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's
doing to the language, I had an epiphany. Perl6 is simply not Perl. It's
about as much Perl as
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a
deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's
doing to the language, I had
At 4:12 PM + 1/28/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a
deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the
[I'm an idiot. I forgot to send this to the group, too.]
Aaron Sherman:
# I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads
# it take a
# deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
#
# I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of
# what Larry's
# doing to
What I don't want to start (and I may have done so anyway) is a simple
name war. If you feel emotionally attached to Perl, then fine, so am
I. But if you feel that there is some compelling logic here that will
affect the community, I would be very interested.
The reason why it's still Perl
On Sat, 2002-01-26 at 12:01, Simon Cozens wrote:
A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
$foo{bar}
actually should be written
%foo{bar}
Hmm... I'm curious, has anyone yet tackled printf(%d{x},%d{x})? Is
that a bug or does it produce n{x} where n is the
Aaron Sherman:
# On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 11:17, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# I'd like you to perform an exercise for me if you have a Camel III.
#
# I have a Camel 1 (pink) and 2, but not 3. However, I follow
# you. You are
# (as everyone else has fallen into the trap of) thinking of only what
# hurdles a
Aaron Sherman:
# On Sat, 2002-01-26 at 12:01, Simon Cozens wrote:
# A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
# $foo{bar}
# actually should be written
# %foo{bar}
#
# Hmm... I'm curious, has anyone yet tackled printf(%d{x},%d{x})? Is
# that a bug or does it
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 10:43:08PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Melvin Smith wrote in perl6-language:
Besides no one has commented on Steve Fink's (I think it was him) idea
to store the result of the most recently executed conditional in $?. I
kinda like that idea myself. It makes
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:56:03AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
Allowing $? would eliminate having any different behavior from boolean
vs scalar context, and that seems like a potentially bad idea. (And I
really don't like the idea of behavior changing based on the addition
of a $? way down
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:31:13PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:40 AM 1/25/2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Simon wrote:
:
: Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
:
: So:
:
: @result = map { block } @data;
:
: becomes:
:
: @result = {block}^.(@data);
:
: Hmmm.
Some people might think of it more like this:
@result = @data
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:30:41AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
@result = @data ^ $subref;
That's gettin' kinda scary.
Hence the original question. :)
--
Sendmail may be safely run set-user-id to root.
-- Eric Allman, Sendmail Installation Guide
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Aaron Sherman:
#
# I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
# and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with
# you.
I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to
consult perldoc on it, at which point
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:52:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
:
:From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
: Aaron Sherman:
: #
: # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
: # and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with
: # you.
:
: I disagree. He'll see
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Aaron Sherman:
#
# I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
# and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with
# you.
I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't
Larry Wall:
# Some people might think of it more like this:
#
# @result = @data ^. {block};
#
# except that {block} would be parsed as a subscript, and you want
# argument binding, so it starts looking more like:
#
# @result = @data ^- $a {block};
#
# But - really is a term-forcer, so
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Simon Cozens) wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:53PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps we shouldn't be using ; for this.
Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
Something like
@res = ^{ DoSomething($a) }, @source -
Simon Cozens writes:
: Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
Before someone panics completely, I suppose I should point out that I'm
not terribly interested in dropping the current Cmap syntax. It's
essentially a method on a closure in its current form, which doesn't
rule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:03:55PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Do they need to? In the simple case, the hyperoperator provides list
: context to its arguments, but just calls the scalar operation repeatedly
: to fake up the list operation. Any operator
:
:
At 01:52 PM 1/28/2002 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Aaron Sherman:
#
# I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
# and think hey, I know Perl, no sweat will disagree with
# you.
I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't
Melvin Smith writes:
: Maybe they just have a huge unwieldy Perl4 app they don't wish to port.
The perl5-to-perl6 translator should handle Perl 4 as well. It might
even handle Perls 3, 2, and 1. :-)
Larry
Buddha Buck writes:
: We have
: while (foo()) - $a {...}
: doing the right thing.
Well, Cfor does that currently, not Cwhile, but...
: Why can't
:
: if foo() - $a { ... }
:
: take the place of the perl5
:
: if (my $a = foo()) {...}
I'd do something explicit like -$a before I'd do some
Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy.
That's right, it isn't. Nor should it strive to.
First off, there are the folks who've no clue what Perl even is. Perl 6
won't make them happy. On the other hand, they won't really be disappointed
with it, either. But that's a rather silly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program
in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will
most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the
benefit of experiencing the major improvements that those
On 1/28/02 9:43 PM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
So, what *is* in a name? If a rose by any other name would smell just as
sweet, why continue to call it a rose? Because identifiers are a proxy for
what they represent - an evocation of the object without benefit of having
one.
Heh, programmer
On Monday 28 January 2002 21:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program
in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will
most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the
28 matches
Mail list logo
