Alexey Trofimenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficulties with
recognizing C:: as part of C... ?? ... :: ... and C:: as
module sigil? Does it involve some DWIM?
Among other things, the ?? will tip off the parser that it's looking
for an expression
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
--
* Juerd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040823 19:46]:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that
David Green wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me
Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
figure out went wrong!
Sarcasm is an ugly thing.
One thing that I just thought of that could be intersting:
$foo = 'a' or 'b'
My thought was that
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
The overloading of 'or' there is
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 08:24, Aaron Sherman wrote:
$foo = 'a' or 'b'
I was too focused on the idea of C??/C:: as a pair-like construct,
and I missed what should have been obvious:
a ?? b :: c
IS
given a { when true { b } default { c } }
Which S4 tells us is:
a -
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
You're assuming that Ceither in a ternary operator. It
could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. Cimplies).
We could actually define ?? as a binary
On 24 Aug 2004, at 22:14, Aaron Sherman wrote:
You don't HAVE to use auto-topicalization. You CAN always write it
long-hand if you find that confusing:
for @words - $word {
given ($chars($word) 70) - $toolong {
say abbreviate($word) ?? $word;
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
You're assuming that Ceither in a ternary operator. It
could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g.
10 matches
Mail list logo
