Re: Load-Bearing Warnings
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:40:37AM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote: Anyway, since most systems don't have it either, I almost always put -w on the #! line even if my script is bound to run on 5.8, which supports the warnings pragma, to exploit the behavior you encountered here. Looks like I wasn't the only one. I'd prefer to put -- there instead. Abigail pgpapui2lkHEz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Secret operators
Andrew Savige wrote: twos complement machine -- and I'm not aware of any perl running on any non twos complement machine. I ported Perl 1.0 (and probably 2.0) to UNIX 1100 (UNIX as guest OS on Univac 1100). The machine was 36-bit, ones complement, word addressable. Porting software to this beast was often a challenge. Fortunately, I haven't had to use that hardware in a long, long time (~1989)! -- Eric Krohn
Re: Secret operators
* McGlinchy, Alistair ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Hi All, High in fun, but low in usefulness is -+- , a high precedence string numerifier. It sort of looks like an A C Clarke style spacestation so that's what I've been calling it. Although I'm not too sure that Larry's spaceship =3D would be able to dock to easily. Of course it would! = | + | Larry's probably been there a couple of times... Examples: print -+-'23a'# prints 23 print -+-'3.00' # prints 3=09 print -+-'1.2e3' # prints 1200 =09 I know 0+ does the trick too, but binary + has a relatively low precedence. Perl will automatically numerify the arguments of the * operator but won't do so for x, !~ or =3D~. Hence this operator is = useful for removing unsightly parenthesises from some expressions. print 0+'20GBP' x 3; # Wrong. Prints 20 =3D=3D 0+20GBP20GBP20GBP print (0+'20GBP') x 3; # Wrong. x 3 is applied to the return of print print((0+'20GBP') x 3); # Right, but too Lispy=20 print -+-'20GBP' x 3; # Right. Spacestation to the rescue! Unfortunately -+- is bugged [*], but I'll leave these as gotcha's for your production code. :-) Cheers, Alistair [*] You might want to consider: print-+- '-2B' x 5; # Bug? --- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D Registered Office: Marks and Spencer plc Waterside House 35 North Wharf Road London W2 1NW Registered No. 214436 in England and Wales. Telephone (020) 7935 4422 =46acsimile (020) 7487 2670 www.marksandspencer.com Please note that electronic mail may be monitored. This e-mail is confidential. If you received it by mistake, please = let us know and then delete it from your system; you should not = copy, disclose, or distribute its contents to anyone nor act in = reliance on this e-mail, as this is prohibited and may be unlawful. -- Jose Alves de Castro [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jose-castro.org/
Re: Secret operators
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:33:35 +1100 (EST) Andrew Savige [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jos_ Castro wrote: Apart from the secret eskimo greeting and the goatse operator, can anyone tell me about other secret operators? Let's not forget the Ton Hospel high-precedence decrement operator ~- invented during a golf tournament (anyone remember which one?). IIRC, Ton's ~- invention allows you to eliminate the parens in: $y = ($x-1)*4; by using instead: $y = ~-$x*4; saving a whopping two strokes. This trick should work on any twos complement machine -- and I'm not aware of any perl running on any non twos complement machine. will not work if $x 0 /-\ Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com -- Vladi Belperchinov-Shabanski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal home page at http://cade.datamax.bg/ DataMax SA http://www.datamax.bg there is still one truth on which we can depend we've started something we can never end pgpXeOAMawvJG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Secret operators
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat wrote:
So we have :
symbolnicknameRole
--
= spaceship documented operator
0+venus numification
}{eskimo greeting END{} in one-liners
=()= goatse
~-inchworm on a stick high-precedence numification
~~inchwormscalar
@{[]} join $, ...
-+- spacestationhigh-precedence numification
Not bad for a start.
Hey Philippe, why don't you give the name we found for @{[]} ?
Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni
-- - --- -- - -- - --- -- - --- -- - --[ http://maddingue.org ]
Close the world, txEn eht nepO
Re: Secret operators
--- Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
symbolnicknameRole
--
= spaceship documented
operator
0+venus numification
}{eskimo greeting END{} in
one-liners
=()= goatse
~-inchworm on a stick
high-precedence numification
~~inchwormscalar
@{[]} join $, ...
-+- spacestation
high-precedence numification
Other naming suggestions:
~- inchworm
or cotton candy (on a stick)
~~ caterpillar
@{[]}cyclops (one eye with eyebrows,
mustache, and square mouth)
-+-cross-hair (or half cross-hair)
or vanishing point (horizon line)
or reticule
]-[ Frowning Sam (resembles the Muppet
named Sam the Eagle)
Beaker (the nerdish Muppet with the
perpetual surprised look)
=
~~
Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Secret operators
Andrew Savige schreef:
The table below is based on wild guesswork. If there are any oldbies
listening, please chime in with corrections.
Not an oldbie, but...
@{[]} aka ???The Schwartz early 1990s
The Larry, May 1 1994
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl/msg/1d82c7c3f3e94266
y///c aka Abigail's Length Horror The Abigaillate 1990s
Although I agree about the name, the inventor seems to have been The
Hall, Jun 22 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/7680c5d579b5fc23
stuff value into $\ for printing The van der Pijll 2001
I'm almost sure that I've seen a very early post by Larry, Randal, or
Tom Christiansen (most probably Larry), where this trick is used. I did
come up with it independently, though.
gr,Eu
Re: Secret operators
On Feb 2, 2005, at 2:36 PM, Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote:
Hey Philippe, why don't you give the name we found for @{[]} ?
It looks like a guy lying on his side in a straightjacket to me.
Chris
--
Chris Dolan, Software Developer, www.chrisdolan.net
Public key: http://www.chrisdolan.net/public.key
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Load-Bearing Warnings
Abigail wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:40:37AM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote: Anyway, since most systems don't have it either, I almost always put -w on the #! line even if my script is bound to run on 5.8, which supports the warnings pragma, to exploit the behavior you encountered here. Looks like I wasn't the only one. I'd prefer to put -- there instead. Abigail Hasn't perl had the warnings pragma since 5.6.1? -- In Reach Technology:http://www.inreachtech.net/ Robert G. Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 559.304.5122 I WILL NOT SHOW OFF I WILL NOT SHOW OFF I WILL NOT SHOW OFF I WILL NOT SHOW OFF Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 7F21
Re: Secret operators
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:49:57 +, José Castro wrote:can anyone tell me about other secret operators? I just produced this in my own code, I think it would qualify. Take this expression in list context: cond ? foo : () I'm talking about the 3 characters at the end: : (). I'd call it a frogs face. -- Bart.
