In Perl 5, caller EXPR returns undef if the caller is top-level code. If
you need it, you can still get file, line, and package information
(this last is important for import subs) by using caller with the
EXPR-less form.
How do you do that in Perl 6? I'd been working with this presumed
The reason we ended up at ./method was simply because it was the best
suggestion anyone had.
Compared to the previous suggestions it was way ahead.
It's other advantage is that (except for on nordic keyboards) dot and
slash are generally right next to each other, so the expense of using it
On 6/18/05 12:23 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
The reason we ended up at ./method was simply because it was the best
suggestion anyone had.
That's what I'm trying to remedy :)
It's other advantage is that (except for on nordic keyboards) dot and
slash are generally right next to each other, so the
Vadim Konovalov wrote:
Icelandic: laukur (Incidentally, none of you will ever guess how to
correctly pronounce that.)
Russian: luk (pronounced similar to English look). For some reason,
Icelandic translation of onion is much closer to Russian than any other
variants...
The English leek is
At 7:52 AM -0400 6/18/05, John Siracusa wrote:
That actually looks more private to me. Let's line 'em up again:
PUBLIC PRIVATE
-- --
./method() .:method()
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .:method()
.method() .:method()
.:method() .method()
.:method()
Darren Duncan skribis 2005-06-18 11:40 (-0700):
item invocation syntax was exactly the same but with the
consideration that all private items have a ':' as the first
character in their otherwise alphanumeric names (the ':' looks like
part of an operator but it isn't).
Except for
On 6/18/05 2:40 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
As I recall, it was decided for a broad scope that public and private
item invocation syntax was exactly the same but with the
consideration that all private items have a ':' as the first
character in their otherwise alphanumeric names (the ':' looks
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 19:55 (-0400):
./method() ./:method()
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .@:method()
.method() .:method()
.-method() .-:method()
[...]
./method() ./:method() # worst
Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said
On 6/18/05 7:54 PM, Juerd wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .@:method()
In Perl, @ has a VERY strong association with arrays, so except for
specialised frameworks, I recommend against using it for other purposes.
The / character has very strong associations in nearly every programming
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:16 (-0400):
On 6/18/05 7:54 PM, Juerd wrote:
In Perl, @ has a VERY strong association with arrays, so except for
specialised frameworks, I recommend against using it for other purposes.
The / character has very strong associations in nearly every
On 6/18/05 8:11 PM, Juerd wrote:
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 19:55 (-0400):
./method() ./:method()
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .@:method()
.method() .:method()
.-method() .-:method()
[...]
./method() ./:method() # worst
Why exactly is the slash not
On 6/18/05 8:28 PM, Juerd wrote:
The unix shell and things resembling it will still be in use much fifteen
years after today, Perl 5 will not.
Ooo, a bold prediction :)
-John
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:35 (-0400):
On 6/18/05 8:28 PM, Juerd wrote:
The unix shell and things resembling it will still be in use much fifteen
years after today, Perl 5 will not.
Ooo, a bold prediction :)
Do you really think so? I think that there is no way that Perl 5 can
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:33 (-0400):
I literally didn't even consider that it could be some sort of new
syntax--and that's saying a lot considering I was reading p6l.
You missed a 33 message thread that was referred to many times. Such
things happen, I am surprised by new inventions
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 02:11 +0200, Juerd wrote:
Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said they like it.
I find it ugly enough that I plan to name my invocants explicitly.
-- c
On 6/18/05 8:55 PM, Juerd wrote:
I'm just hoping there's an alternative that everyone will like better
As long as I'm part of everyone, that won't happen. I've listed
numerous possibilities for myself, and found none that I liked better
than ./method. I don't think you can come up with a
chromatic wrote:
I find it ugly enough that I plan to name my invocants explicitly.
...which should be construed as a *feature* of the current syntax. ;-)
Damian
At 1:54 AM +0200 6/19/05, Juerd wrote:
Except for attributes, which play a different game: the colon comes
*instead* of the dot as the twigil, while the accessor method gets : in
front of its name. If I recall correctly, the syntax is very misleading
in that it is NOT part of the name.
I would
18 matches
Mail list logo
