Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:40:17AM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote: > > > Does that mean I have a dirty mind? > > At least not dirtier than the inventor of the =()= (unless that was you ;) I think the first person using =()= (Randal?) is not the same as the first person naming it in a Perl context. Both probably have been invented independently, as goatse was a popular meme at some point, and people collected references to it. It's not suprising that a minimalist ascii-art version appeared. And that it looked like Perl code. -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) The man who most obeys the king is the man who gets crowned. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #13 (Epic))
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 03:45:47PM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote: > >>> ~~<> > >> Looks more like a "kite" operator to me. > > Does that mean I have a dirty mind? > > That means that there's no such thing as a four-squared sperm! > Not that =()= resembles much to a... Hrmpf. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm. The side view is four-squared enough for me. The limitations of ASCII shouldn't limit our imaginations! -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) Too many believe only in the belief. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #58 (Epic))
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
>>> ~~<> >> Looks more like a "kite" operator to me. > Does that mean I have a dirty mind? That means that there's no such thing as a four-squared sperm! (ps my previous answer apparently didn't pass to the list, this is a shorter version of it anyway :) -- Sincerely, Dmitry Karasik
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
> >> While doing some tests/research on secret operators, I stumbled upon >> this >> one in my one-liners: >> >> ~~<> >> >> Obviously, this should be named "the sperm operator". >> Looks more like a "kite" operator to me. > Does that mean I have a dirty mind? At least not dirtier than the inventor of the =()= (unless that was you ;) ... anyway I think it'll be adopted better as "kite", and well also, where did you see a four-squared sperm? :) -- Sincerely, Dmitry Karasik
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
I would think it means you live in an area where it's not very windy.
*Daniel Cutter*
s/\b[^a]/\u$&/g,s;$;,;,print for join$,,map{('acehjklnoprstu'
=~m(.)g,$")[/\d/?$_:hex]}q(4dbce078c32ae92a6e30152aff)=~m(.)g
Am 15.03.2012 09:22, schrieb Philippe Bruhat (BooK):
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 06:25:49AM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
While doing some tests/research on secret operators, I stumbled upon this
one in my one-liners:
~~<>
Obviously, this should be named "the sperm operator".
Looks more like a "kite" operator to me.
Does that mean I have a dirty mind?
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 06:25:49AM +0100, Dmitry Karasik wrote: > >> > >> While doing some tests/research on secret operators, I stumbled upon this > >> one in my one-liners: > >> > >> ~~<> > >> > >> Obviously, this should be named "the sperm operator". > > > Looks more like a "kite" operator to me. > Does that mean I have a dirty mind? -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) Law is the best deterrent to Justice. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #90 (Epic))
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
>> Hi, >> >> While doing some tests/research on secret operators, I stumbled upon this >> one in my one-liners: >> >> ~~<> >> >> Obviously, this should be named "the sperm operator". Looks more like a "kite" operator to me. -- Sincerely, Dmitry Karasik
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: > Frankly, I think this could be considered a bug. Both the left-facing > and right-facing versions of the inchworm on a stick should work on > all integers in Perl. Complement two arithmetics demand it! Now, the > question is, how long has this been broken in Perl? Forever? I don't consider it a bug. ~ has to either assume signed or unsigned. You get a choice by whether you do it under the scope of use integer (implicit: comma signed) or not.
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 01:46:34PM -0700, Andrew Savige wrote: > > [ ~~ vs. scalar ] > > The ~~ secret operator is old hat, good ol' inchworm: > > http://www.catonmat.net/blog/secret-perl-operators/#inchworm > > BooK's innovation is to add <> and <>+0 to the end of it. > > BTW, in addition to inchworm-on-a-stick ~- to subtract one, > I often use the converse -~ to add one (though only in Ruby > and Python, not usually Perl). For example, -~1 produces 2 > in Ruby and Python, but -4,294,967,294 in Perl. > It works in C too. I was doing some research on secret operators today, and I discovered the effects of the other inchworm-on-a-stick, and the fact that both operators are broken for half the integers in Perl. ~- only decrements integers greater than 0 in Perl. -~ only increments integers lesser than 0 in Perl. According to Abigail and rgs, it's probably because ~ must also handle strings. Abigail and I looked at the source of pp_negate, and it seems like it does the right thing, so ~ seems to be the culprit. (I see that tzchak Scott-Thoennes has provided a thorough answer in another mail.) Frankly, I think this could be considered a bug. Both the left-facing and right-facing versions of the inchworm on a stick should work on all integers in Perl. Complement two arithmetics demand it! Now, the question is, how long has this been broken in Perl? Forever? -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) The learned man makes a mistake but once... but the truly stupid keep practicing until they get it right. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #75 (Epic))
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:48 AM, John Douglas Porter
wrote:
> So is that the Perl 6 smart match operator? or something else?
The latter.
> In any case... How does it work here? It looks like it's functionally
> equivalent to scalar()... but why?
Perl's ~ is operand sensitive; if its operand has a numeric value
(either because it was assigned a number, the result of a numeric
operation, or had been used in numeric context), it is a numeric
bitwise or (implicitly converting to UV, or under the scope of use
integer, IV, first); otherwise it is a string bitwise or.
For most inputs, in either case it can be repeated to reproduce the
original value and acts just like scalar().
Examples of exceptions:
# floating point
$x = 1.23; print ~~$x; # 1
# string used in numeric context
$x = "1.23"; print ~~$x if $x != 0; # 1
# integer out of range
use Config '%Config';
$x=2**(8*$Config{uvsize}); print ~~$x; # max uv
$x = -1; print ~~$x; # max uv
$x = 2**(8*$Config{uvsize}-1); use integer; print ~~$x; # min iv
$x = -2**(8*$Config{uvsize}-1)-1; use integer; print ~~$x; # min iv
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
> [ ~~ vs. scalar ] The ~~ secret operator is old hat, good ol' inchworm: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/secret-perl-operators/#inchworm BooK's innovation is to add <> and <>+0 to the end of it. BTW, in addition to inchworm-on-a-stick ~- to subtract one, I often use the converse -~ to add one (though only in Ruby and Python, not usually Perl). For example, -~1 produces 2 in Ruby and Python, but -4,294,967,294 in Perl. /-\
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 07:48:35AM -0700, John Douglas Porter wrote: [ ~~ vs. scalar ] > > So is that the Perl 6 smart match operator? or something else? > In any case... How does it work here? It looks like it's functionally > equivalent to scalar()... but why? It's twice bitwise not, and bitwise not enforces scalar context. Think ~(~(foo)).
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
So is that the Perl 6 smart match operator? or something else? In any case... How does it work here? It looks like it's functionally equivalent to scalar()... but why? -- jdporter --- On Wed, 3/14/12, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: > From: Philippe Bruhat (BooK) > Subject: Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new? > To: fwp@perl.org > Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2012, 8:29 AM > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:36:10PM > +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > While doing some tests/research on secret operators, I > stumbled upon this > > one in my one-liners: > > > > ~~<> > > > > Obviously, this should be named "the sperm operator". > It's only useful > > in list context. Just like sperm cells work better when > there are many > > of them. ;-) > > > > Example usage: > > # the first three lines constitute the > header > @header = ( ~~<>, ~~<>, > ~~<> ); > > -- > Philippe Bruhat (BooK) > > The only way to get a better government is to get better > voters. > > > (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #109 > (Epic)) >
Re: The sperm secret operator: is it new?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:36:10PM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote: > Hi, > > While doing some tests/research on secret operators, I stumbled upon this > one in my one-liners: > > ~~<> > > Obviously, this should be named "the sperm operator". It's only useful > in list context. Just like sperm cells work better when there are many > of them. ;-) > Example usage: # the first three lines constitute the header @header = ( ~~<>, ~~<>, ~~<> ); -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) The only way to get a better government is to get better voters. (Moral from Groo The Wanderer #109 (Epic))
