I'd have to agree.
I also think that .foo should always mean $_.foo in methods, without causing
any errors if $?SELF =:= $_ becomes false.
OK. There is a lot of historical threads on the subject and already a lot of
legacy in the Perl6 language.
OK - As I understand it, this is what A12
On Thu, July 14, 2005 10:47 am, Autrijus Tang said:
If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
1. Meaning of $_
.method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.
On 7/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Certainly. The problem is that there are too many viable alternatives,
and half of everyone hates half of the alternatives.
You will know I'm no longer a benevolent dictator when I start to enjoy
watching people squirm every time I change my
Aankhen skribis 2005-07-14 12:39 (+0530):
Well, you've certainly got everyone flustered enough that they'll be
overjoyed even if you pick the alternative they hated the most... :-)
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to
On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to test patience.
If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation, let me just
give up my baby to the other woman by saying:
* It's
If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
1. Meaning of $_
.method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.
2. Topicalization of $?SELF
Neutral on this -- I can
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote:
On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to test patience.
If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation,
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400):
Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we
need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust
@larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent choice that will
serve the community well.
Would this
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
use dot;
it'll always be construed as unambigous. You could go so far as to
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:39:44PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
If .method always
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
use dot;
ICK!
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-14 13:39 (-0700):
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous.
Thus it never means $?SELF.foo without $_ being
Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-07-15 1:09 (+0300):
use dot;
If we have pragmas for the 99 Perl6's that every wacko wants to
have, we won't have any readability.
The syntax needs to be consistent and useful, even at the price of
some danger.
Agreed.
I don't want to be using a language
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:09:57AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400):
Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we
need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust
@larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Aankhen wrote:
: I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
: eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
: viable alternative that doesn't involve outlawing it?
Certainly. The problem is that there are too
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-11 18:29 (-0700):
is that we simply outlaw .foo notation at *compile* time in those
scopes where we know (at compile time) that $_ and $?SELF diverge.
In such a scope you *must* specify $_ or $?SELF (or equivalent).
What?
That makes having a default at
I feel a me too post is in order.
I've written code that is 2-3 levels of nested given/when in a
method of an object that wasn't the topic.
I did not feel confused at all, juggling .foo and ./foo, which are
visually distinct, and different to type. They convey a big
difference of meaning, even
On 7/12/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Disallowing .method here means a huge step back in time. Back to
$_.method or $object.method.
[snip]
I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
viable
Autrijus Tang wrote:
The compiler, in turn inspect whether there's an bound $_ in scope
with $?SELF set. It is not trivial, because this should work:
sub baz (c) { c() }
method foo { baz { .bar } } # $_ is free in inner closure
But this needs to fail:
sub baz (c) { c(1) }
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:36:23PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: : The obvious thought is to have yet
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Robin Redeker wrote:
I wasn't thinking 'cool', I was thinking 'visually distinctive and
mnemonic'. I actually think o. is cooler.
Yes, i would like o. more too. At least it doesn't introduce
a completly meaningless '/' preceded by a '.'.
Hmmm... I am one of those who
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Hmmm... I am one of those who likes ./ more, instead. I mean, I _really_
: like it! Thus, how about making '/' less meaningless, i.e. more
: meaningful, in more general situations?!?
Um, do you have a specific proposal? Like
Larry~
On 7/11/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Hmmm... I am one of those who likes ./ more, instead. I mean, I _really_
: like it! Thus, how about making '/' less meaningless, i.e. more
: meaningful, in more general
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:50:56PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
: Yay! I guess I will take this moment to resuggest @^ as a list of
: invocants and $^ =:= @^[0]. I like how the ^ kinda points you the
: right way, also visually distinctive and doesn't get in the way of
: $_...
I don't see much use
(Cross-posting the new ruling from p6l to p6c to discuss implementation
strategy)
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
{
let $Larry.decisive = 1;
Okay, this is what we're gonna do. We're gonna go back pretty close to
where we were originally, but with a
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: The obvious thought is to have yet another magical, $^H like flag, to
: denote the current dialect. If it is set, then the parser can emit
: .method as $_.method, instead
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: The obvious thought is to have yet another magical, $^H like flag, to
: denote the current dialect. If it
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
And what will be the default syntax to call
a method on self? If everyone has completly other
preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
And what will be the default syntax to call
a method on self? If everyone has completly other
preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote:
And what will be the default syntax to call
a method on self? If everyone has completly other
preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
syntax, which completly
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:28:34PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: I have never understood what is wrong with this:
:
: method foo ($self: $bar) {
: $self.baz()
: }
:
: Thats a fine option to have.
: But therecomes another
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:43:01PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
: Maybe per .-file in the home-directory, like .vimrc ...
Only if pulled in with a use. I don't want to see Perl programs
implicitly starting in a variant language. Dialects must be declared.
Otherwise you're in a situation like
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:12:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
The basic problem is that I always hated looking at C++ and not knowing
whether I was looking at a function or a method, so I'm not going to
make standard Perl work like that. On the other hand, there's always
use self ;
to
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
And what will be the default syntax to call
a method on self? If everyone has completly other
preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
syntax, which completly wont fit into the language,
What a way to win
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote:
And what will be the default syntax to call
a method on self? If everyone has completly other
preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
syntax, which completly wont fit into the language, whose
favorite will be the default?
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:32:37PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hi,
i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
$self, and why does
method ()
not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++)
Because perl can't distinguish between the method foo() and the
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:08:17PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:32:37PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
Hi,
i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
$self, and why does
method ()
not work for calling a method on $self?
On 7/8/05, Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
$self, and why does
method ()
not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++)
IIRC, Larry wants to be able to distinguish method calls from sub
calls, so that
The basic problem is that I always hated looking at C++ and not knowing
whether I was looking at a function or a method, so I'm not going to
make standard Perl work like that. On the other hand, there's always
use self ;
to go with everyone else's preferences:
use self .
use self `
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW to go with everyone else's preferences:
LW use self .
LW use self `
LW use self ·
LW use self ..
LW use self ^.
LW use self i.
LW use self o.
LW use self ¤.
LW use self me.
LW use self
41 matches
Mail list logo
