Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
and I'm toying with waiting for A5 before I do. Also, I've not yet
implemented such important stuff as proper closures/lambda or the
environment chain, but the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote:
[ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all
into silence?
--
Piers
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a
At 3:03 PM +0100 4/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote:
[ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all
into silence?
Nah. You just can't hear the people running away screaming from there. ;-P
--
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 10:03, Piers Cawley wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], I wrote:
[ A huge wodge of possible perl 6 code ]
I'm getting that Warnock's Dilemma feeling here... Did I stun you all
into silence?
On my clock, your original message arrived at 04:23, and your followup
at
At 3:49 PM +0100 4/10/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Your idea at the end of regugitating the code back out as Parrot or Perl
is just slightly stunning on its own.
I thought that was the easy bit. The compiler just (for appropriate
values of 'just' of
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're talking about how to make .foo mean self.foo regardless of the
current topic.
Are we? I was looking for a way to unambgiously access the current
object in such a way that
At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
in one of the next $(A,E)'s
my SchemeExpr
Allison Randal wrote:
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're talking about how to make .foo mean self.foo regardless of the
current topic.
Are we? I was looking for a way to unambgiously access the current
object
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
do the latter?
.m2; #
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
do the
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
do
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no invocant? If the former, how would you
do the latter?
Should both be allowed to exist? Do both exist? Why do both exist?
David Whipp wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no invocant? If the
At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:23 AM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Okay, this is the beginnings of Scheme in Perl6. I'm sure there's
stuff I'm getting wrong. I've not written the parser yet for instance
Very nice! Quite a sample, maybe Larry/Damian can use this
in one of
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no
Graham Barr wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as
Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current
Glenn Linderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Graham Barr wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
I think we need to back off of unmarked subroutines becoming a method
call. That one extra '.'
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
Direction 2 moves into the more exciting but scarier realm of alternate
defaults.
It could, but how about an alternative?
Ah-ha, yet a third Direction!
Need there be a unary dot to specify
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
..class.m2: # call static m2 within m1's class, regardless of how m1 was called
Typo. That should be just .class.m2, only one leading '.'.
--
Mark J. REED[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark J. Reed wrote
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
..class.m2: # call static m2 within m1's class, regardless
of how m1 was called
Typo. That should be just .class.m2, only one leading '.'.
Wouldn't that be the current topic's class?
Dave.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 12:12:56PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
..class.m2: # call static m2 within m1's class, regardless
of how m1 was called
Typo. That should be just .class.m2, only one leading '.'.
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
I think we need to back off
Ashley Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
grin Patches welcome.
Excellent...
Forgive any formatting errors, I have mail issues.
Thanks, applying. With a few caveats.
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@
class SchemePair is SchemeExpr {
my $nil //= class is SchemeExpr {
method is_nil {1}
+
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:42:58PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
I like the following, assumed to be within method m1:
..m2();# call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class
This has already been semi-rejected. I agree with the reasoning. Not
that it wouldn't be nice to
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
I think we need to back off of unmarked subroutines
Piers Cawley
This may be a case of keep up at the back, but if that is a
method call,
how do I call a subroutine from within a method ?
[...]
Yes, I know there's several different ways I could do it, but this
approach feels right.
I think this comes does to huffmann encoding: which
David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley
This may be a case of keep up at the back, but if that is a
method call,
how do I call a subroutine from within a method ?
[...]
Yes, I know there's several different ways I could do it, but this
approach feels right.
I think
The following syntaxes have been seen:
foo()
.foo()
..foo() ## rejected because .. is different binary op
class.foo()
FooClass.foo()
::foo()
Package::foo()
$foo()
$_.foo()
With a nod to Piers, and with apologes if this is silly in
the context of Perl 6 syntax, what about:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:42:58PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
I like the following, assumed to be within method m1:
..m2(); # call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class
This has already been
great idea :)
I've just tried gnuCash program and think it is very cool (i've enjoyed to take
first steps in double-entry accounting, i was always wondering what the hell is this
:) )...
http://www.ncsysadmin.org/july2001/ncsa-gnucash-talk.html#toc1
(very entertaining intro :) )
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:23:23PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
foo() = $self-foo()
.foo() = $_-foo()
foo() = foo()
...
For reasons that I can't quite put my finger on at the moment, I
really,
David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
foo() = $self-foo()
.foo() = $_-foo()
foo() = foo()
...
Alternative:
$self.foo() = $self-foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
.foo() = $_-foo() # but might be altered by a
$.foo
It's already defined as an instance variable.
I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
property for class variables. Like Cis private as discussed. That or
Cis static. I
Allison wrote:
David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
foo() = $self-foo()
.foo() = $_-foo()
foo() = foo()
...
Alternative:
$self.foo() = $self-foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
.foo() = $_-foo() #
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:04:56AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison wrote:
$self.foo() = $self-foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
.foo() = $_-foo() # but might be altered by a pragma
foo() = foo()
And welcome back to where we started! ;-)
Exactly! :)
The
At 07:40 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Melvin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 10:50 AM 4/10/2002 -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same
At 07:54 PM 4/10/2002 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but
At 08:04 AM 4/11/2002 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
And welcome back to where we started! ;-)
Wow there is a lot of blood on the ground here. Must have been messy... :)
Of course, the problem is then: what should the name of this topicalizer
variable be? The main options are:
$self
Melvin Smith wrote
I think that would be just plain bad design, but I'd be happy
if someone showed me a use for it. :)
well, I've been known to do
sub UNIVERSAL::debug
{
my $self = shift;
my $msg = _;
eval {$self=$self-name} if ref($self);
my $timestamp = ...;
my
The current plans indicate that a subroutine's params should be defaulted
like this:
sub load_data ($filename ; $version / /= 1) {...}
(The space between / and / is on purpose, my emailer has problems if they
are together.) If that's the technique, how does the caller indicate that
the
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:04:56AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Reflecting on this, it seems that it would be useful if methods
implicitly did their default topicalization-of-invocant like so:
- $self
rather than just:
- $_
That is, that as well as aliasing the invocant
Allison Randal wrote:
H... this being the case, is there any reason we should ever need to
name the invocant explicitly?
Yes. To make it read-writable.
Perl makes that much easier than most other languages, because you can pass
the invocant by (writable) reference, so you don't need to
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 12:01:58PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
H... this being the case, is there any reason we should ever need to
name the invocant explicitly?
Yes. To make it read-writable.
Curses! Foiled again! :)
Perl makes that much easier than most
At 04:01 PM 4/10/2002 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
$.foo
It's already defined as an instance variable.
I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
property for class variables. Like Cis
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Reflecting on this, it seems that it would be useful if methods
implicitly did their default topicalization-of-invocant like so:
- $self
rather than just:
- $_
That is, that as well as aliasing the invocant to $_, they also
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
$.foo
It's already defined as an instance variable.
I don't think I like that. Instance variables are far more common that
class variables, so why not just $foo, and you could use a compile-time
property for class variables. Like Cis
Miko O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current plans indicate that a subroutine's params should be defaulted
like this:
sub load_data ($filename ; $version / /= 1) {...}
(The space between / and / is on purpose, my emailer has problems if
they are together.) If that's the
Ah, but I think the mnemonic value of the '.' more than earns its keep
here. Cour $foo is private is doing a slightly different job
anyway. And instance variables are *not* the same as 'normal'
variables, they hang off a different symbol table (or syte, to use
Damian's oh so clever term from
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
Miko O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The current plans indicate that a subroutine's params should be defaulted
like this:
sub load_data ($filename ; $version / /= 1) {...}
(The space between / and / is on purpose, my emailer has
Piers wrote:
one could always handle the first case
more explicitly by doing:
sub load_data ($filename; $version) {
$version = 1 if _.length 2;
...
}
Err...no. If you specify named parameters, you don't get _.
It could be handled by overloading though:
sub
Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers wrote:
one could always handle the first case
more explicitly by doing:
sub load_data ($filename; $version) {
$version = 1 if @_.length 2;
...
}
Err...no. If you specify named parameters, you don't get @_.
It could be
55 matches
Mail list logo
