In a message dated Wed, 14 Apr 2004, David Storrs writes:
Actually, what I'd like to know is when it was decided that %hash{key}
meant %hash{key()}?? Was it in one of the Apocalypses?
Perhaps it wasn't spelled out, but the implication was certainly there.
Barewords are gone. Braces create a
Chris skribis 2004-04-14 17:07 (-0700):
Perhaps this is naive, but couldn't something like this be achieved in a
manner similar to how I just implemented it in Ruby? Surely Perl will have
similar capabilities to handle unknown methods.
As explained in [EMAIL PROTECTED], it's not a
question of
David Storrs skribis 2004-04-14 22:39 (-0700):
Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
(This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
That is inconvenient.
1) ` looks like it should be a bracketing operator
I think you means circumfix/balanced operator.
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-14 16:40 (-0400):
From a source tree I work with (which I cannot divulge code from, but I
think statistics like this are fine):
$ find . -name \*.pl | wc -l
330
$ find . -name \*.pl -exec grep -hlE 'qx|`|`|readpipe' {} \; | wc -l
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 21:23, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Lets try that again, since I think you parsed my email in a way I
didn't intend (and its at least 50% my fault)
Hey! *I* have to step up for 50% of the blame now? Where's my lawyer!
;-)
In my opinion, starting a script with #!/usr/bin/perl6
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Personally, I view Perl 6 as such a completely new language (although
still Perlish in spirit, it is very different in other respects), that
I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my Perl 6
programs with #!/usr/bin/perl6 instead of #!/usr/bin/perl, just
the
Gregor N. Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... that I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my
Perl 6 programs with #!/usr/bin/perl6 instead of
#!/usr/bin/perl,
Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start all my perl programs with
/usr/bin/perl5. Today, I would be quite unhappy
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 13:23, Johan Vromans wrote:
Gregor N. Purdy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... that I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my
Perl 6 programs with #!/usr/bin/perl6 instead of
#!/usr/bin/perl,
Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start all my perl
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-15 14:29 (-0400):
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 16:56, Juerd wrote:
How many of those backticks
Note, those weren't backticks, those were programs. There were 123
PROGRAMS that used backticks or equivalent syntax.
I said backticks, and I meant backticks. I'm not sure
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hashfoo retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to counter the
damage of removal of barewords
* %hash`foo occupies an important nitch, trading features (slice, autovivication)
to optmize
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 12:27, Scott Walters wrote:
Without commenting on the rest of the proposal, please allow me to clear
up one point:
* Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hashfoo)
the proposal is being rejected out of hand
This whole thread *is* public comment.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:27:12PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hashfoo retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to
counter the damage of removal of barewords
Actually, %hashfoo will be like
It's you.
* My objection to the Java community process applies in _some_ _small_
part to the Perl community process. I present it as a negative ideal
with the implication that it should be avoided.
* My objection to it being rejected out of hand applies not to the Perl community
process
-Original Message-
From: Scott Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 03:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Juerd
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backticks
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
*
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 01:26:47PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
: So, my apologies to who anyone who feels unfairly or excessively criticized,
: except chromatic. There is no forgiveness for someone who seeks out irked people
: with the single goal of further irking them. Since chromatic is so
Scott * %hash`s is an example of a small thing that would be easy to implement
Scott in core but would be used constantly (if JavaScript is any indication,
Scott every few lines), giving a lot of bang for the buck
Not sure that JavaScript is relevant here, since the equivalent
syntax there, .,
If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index hash
access syntax, is there any reason why we can't use a single quote (')
rather than backtick ('), akin to the Perl4-ish package separator,
ie %foo'bar rather than %foo`bar?
On the grounds that personally I hate the backtick
On 2004-04-15 at 16:49:28, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Not sure that JavaScript is relevant here, since the equivalent
syntax there, ., is the same as the method call syntax. But see my
proposal below.
Before the nit-pickers jump in, I was oversimplifying above. The
method call syntax in JavaScript
Mark J. Reed skribis 2004-04-15 16:49 (-0400):
If I might offer a modest counter-proposal - how about a fallback method
(the equivalent of Perl5's AUTOLOAD or Ruby's method_missing, however
that winds up being spelled in Perl6) that would return the value of the
key equal to the requested
I found Luke Palmer's Synopsis 3 on perl.com at
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/03/18/synopsis3.html but didn't see it out at
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/synopsis/.
--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist
ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road Main:
Dave Mitchell skribis 2004-04-15 21:56 (+0100):
If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index hash
access syntax, is there any reason why we can't use a single quote (')
rather than backtick ('), akin to the Perl4-ish package separator,
ie %foo'bar rather than %foo`bar?
As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good time to
ask if the following will be supported in some form:
If I have some structure like %foo{monday}, %foo{tuesday} etc,
I can set their values enmass using:
%foomonday tuesday wednesday = a b c;
What if I had
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 13:37, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, I, for one, think chromatic was right on the money.
No matter how right my thoughts might have been, my tone *was* rude and
that's not right. Apologies to Scott.
-- c
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
David Storrs skribis 2004-04-14 22:39 (-0700):
Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
(This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
That is inconvenient.
Yup.
1) ` looks like it should be a
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:09 PM
To: Dave Mitchell
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: backticks
Dave Mitchell skribis 2004-04-15 21:56 (+0100):
If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:09 (-0400):
If we're going to entertain alternatives, why not use % as the hash
subscriptor?
To borrow from another thread:
%foo%monday%food = 10;
%foo%monday%travel = 100;
%foo%tuesday%food = 10;
%foo%tuesday%travel = 150;
There is as far as I
-Original Message-
From: Abhijit A. Mahabal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Array/Hash Slices, multidimensional
As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good time to
ask if the following will be
-Original Message-
From: Matthijs van Duin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
%foo is a hash. When I see %foo%bar, it feels like that should be a hash
too. Besides that, $foo%bar looks funny and @[EMAIL PROTECTED] does so even more.
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
$foo % bar
% is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
Typability and readability are both VERY important.
Juerd
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:38:34PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
The use of % as a modulo operator is purely a legacy from 'C', where it was
a failure: in 'C', the only number you care about for modulus is some power
of 2, and you get those using bitwise-and anyway.
I disagree with this
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
$foo % bar
% is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
Typability and readability are both VERY important.
In that case, why not define a Class::Hash-like
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Abhijit A. Mahabal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Array/Hash Slices, multidimensional
As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good time
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
$foo % bar
% is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
Typability and readability are both VERY important.
In that case, why
-Original Message-
From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings writes:
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
$foo % bar
% is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
Typability and
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:38:34PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
The use of % as a modulo operator is purely a legacy from 'C',
where it was a failure: in 'C', the only number you care about
for modulus
Juerd wrote:
I think %hash`key makes sense. But I'd like to find out if more people
like this idea.
We already have two hash dereference syntaxes. That's arguably one too
many as it is. Let's fix the deficiencies in the syntax we have, rather
than adding even more syntax with even more
Austin Hastings writes:
If you think about it, what we really ought to do is train ourselves
to reverse the numbers row on our keyboards. If we're doing a good
job about avoiding magic numbers, then $ % ( ) are going
to be much more frequently used than 2 4 5 7 9 0, so why don't we
fix
37 matches
Mail list logo
