Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:44:26 +0200
From: Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:56:06PM -, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
I would like to write
for my $key ( $hash{foo}-keys ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
This, or something similar was hashed out on p5p, h, about 4 years
ago, give or take four years ;-) Actually, I think it might have been
when Chip was Pumpking, which would have made it about five years ago.
I'm not surprised that other people suggested it... and I'm sure that
there are good arguments against as well.
Hmmm... I just realized that it's possible to get almost the same
thing by misusing bless:
package hash;
sub bless { bless shift }
sub keys { keys %{+shift} }
sub values { values %{+shift} }
sub hash { %{+shift} }
package main;
my $href = hash::bless { foo = 1, bar = 2 };
print join ', ', $href-keys;
print join ', ', $href-values;
print join ', ', $href-hash;
Tempting --- now if only I could create a method named % or @ ... I'm
not sure how many optimizations this loses relative to the %{ $href }
construction, though.
Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Humour NOT marked)
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 01:35:10PM -, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:44:26 +0200
From: Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:56:06PM -, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
I would like to write
for my $key ( $hash{foo}-keys ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
This, or something similar was hashed out on p5p, h, about 4 years
ago, give or take four years ;-) Actually, I think it might have been
when Chip was Pumpking, which would have made it about five years ago.
I'm not surprised that other people suggested it... and I'm sure that
there are good arguments against as well.
Hmmm... I just realized that it's possible to get almost the same
thing by misusing bless:
package hash;
sub bless { bless shift }
sub keys { keys %{+shift} }
sub values { values %{+shift} }
sub hash { %{+shift} }
package main;
my $href = hash::bless { foo = 1, bar = 2 };
print join ', ', $href-keys;
print join ', ', $href-values;
print join ', ', $href-hash;
Tempting --- now if only I could create a method named % or @ ... I'm
not sure how many optimizations this loses relative to the %{ $href }
construction, though.
Creating methods with names '%', '@' or whatever isn't the problem.
The problem is calling them.
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
package hash;
sub bless { bless shift }
{
no strict 'refs';
*{'hash::@'} = sub {keys %{+shift}};
*{'hash::*'} = sub {values %{+shift}};
*{'hash::%'} = sub {%{+shift}}
}
package main;
my $href = hash::bless { foo = 1, bar = 2 };
$\ = \n;
$, = , ;
print $href - $_ foreach qw /@ * %/;
__END__
Running this gives:
foo, bar
1, 2
foo, 1, bar, 2
But '$href - %' and also '$href - %' are syntax errors. You
can put a variable on the right side of an arrow, but not a
literal string.
Abigail
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:42:17 -0500, c. church wrote:
$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} is extrmely descriptive. I
like it. I can look in once place and see exactly what I need.
Yeah... but what I don't like, is that if I have an array (or list):
@follow = ('foo', 'bar', 'baz');
that I can't have a simple expression with \%hash and @follow which will
look up the above expression or me. All I can do, is create a loop that
follows each ref:
my $ref = \%hash;
foreach (@follow) {
$ref = $ref-{$_};
}
and in the end, $ref will contain the value I want. Er, it will contain
a *copy* of the value, I can't modify the original hash element using
it.
Complicated, or what?
Loop like this:
my $here = \\%hash;
$here = \${$here}-{$_} for @follow;
# Now you can really access that spot (even if it didn't exist before)
$$here = $value;
RE: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
c. church writes:
If that's bad, just use something nearly as bad once, i.e.:
my $hRef = \%{ $hash{foo}{bar} };
$hash{foo}{bar} is already a hashref. You don't need to dereference it just
to reference it back:
my $href = $hash{foo}{bar};
Having said that, I don't believe that there should be any one rule
governing the depth of your hashes. Different people think differently, and
therefore might choose different data structures. Whatever makes you feel
more comfortable. This is Perl we're talking about.
--Ala
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (c. church) writes:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree. C$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} is horribly ugly. Your solution
is a redesign. My solution is to use whitespace. The latter is
far easier than the former.
Personally, I disagree - $hash{foo}{bar}{baz} is extrmely descriptive. I
like it. I can look in once place and see exactly what I need.
If that's bad, just use something nearly as bad once, i.e.:
my $hRef = \%{ $hash{foo}{bar} };
my $blah = $hRef-{baz};
Ummm, why not just
my $hRef = $hash{foo}{bar};
my $blah = $hRef-{baz};
? \%{ $x } just gives you back $x, if it is in fact a hash ref. If it
isn't, you've only moved the error by one line.
Btw, I really like the infix operator. It's pretty, it fills my code with
all sorts of warmness of knowing exactly what it means. =)
What I've sometimes wished for is some way of dereffing to a hash or
array using - or some related postfix thing. So instead of
my $aref = $hash{foo};
for my $key ( keys %$aref ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
or
for my $key ( keys %{ $hash{foo} } ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
I would like to write
for my $key ( $hash{foo}-keys ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
or even
for my $key ( keys $hash{foo}-% ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
... I'd find these easier to make sense of, though I've got a sneaking
suspicion that I'm in a small minority there. But of course they'd be
fun, because I could inflict them on unsuspecting readers of my code.
Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Humour NOT marked)
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
Lars Henrik Mathiesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
| What I've sometimes wished for is some way of dereffing to a hash or
| array using - or some related postfix thing. So instead of
|
| my $aref = $hash{foo};
| for my $key ( keys %$aref ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
|
| or
|
| for my $key ( keys %{ $hash{foo} } ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
|
| I would like to write
|
| for my $key ( $hash{foo}-keys ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
|
| or even
|
| for my $key ( keys $hash{foo}-% ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
I think I vaguely remember from one of Damian's talks that all built-ins in
Perl 6 will in fact be indirect object syntax. So you could actually do
%hash-keys.
I don't know about the dereferencing issue, though. DWIM?
Please, correct me if I horribly misunderstood an important aspect of that
talk. It might well be the fact as it was one of the 8 o'clock in the
morning speeches during which I hadn't had my daily caffeine injection yet.
And I was still wrapping my mind around SelfGol and enjoying the Australian
accent. (Which - opposing my German/American/British accent - has a pleasant
ring to it.)
Steffen
--
$_=qq#tsee gmx.net#;s#e#s#g;s#[^\s\w]#c#;s#s#ust#g;s#t#J#e;s#nus#ker#
;chop;$c=' ';$c='12319';@c=split/(..)/,'8234130006710523';@d=split3
,$c;chop;' at ';s#(t)ustust#$1\0ano$1;.#;y#.; #ehr#;@_=$_;shift@c,substr
$_[0],$_,1,chr(ord(substr$_[0],$_)-shift@c)for$d[0]..$d[1];print$_[0]\n;
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:56:06PM -, Lars Henrik Mathiesen wrote:
What I've sometimes wished for is some way of dereffing to a hash or
array using - or some related postfix thing. So instead of
my $aref = $hash{foo};
for my $key ( keys %$aref ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
or
for my $key ( keys %{ $hash{foo} } ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
I would like to write
for my $key ( $hash{foo}-keys ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
or even
for my $key ( keys $hash{foo}-% ) { print $hash{bar}-{$key} }
... I'd find these easier to make sense of, though I've got a sneaking
suspicion that I'm in a small minority there. But of course they'd be
fun, because I could inflict them on unsuspecting readers of my code.
This, or something similar was hashed out on p5p, h, about 4 years
ago, give or take four years ;-) Actually, I think it might have been
when Chip was Pumpking, which would have made it about five years ago.
You could search the archives. I would have done had I been able to
think of something sensible to search for.
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
At 2002-04-16 20:16:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And no, saying perl5 will still be around isn't doing us much good. There won't be new development of perl5, or bug fixes. There will. It'll just be slower than it is now. - ams
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
And no, saying perl5 will still be around isn't doing us much good. There won't be new development of perl5, or bug fixes. Other languages will remain being developed and bugfixed. If perl6 is going to happen (I hope it won't), I'll be shopping for a new language. perl6 will just be one of the candidates. When the developmet/bug fixing of perl5 discontinues, what will happen if someone insists to continue the path. Perhaps with forking? Then the development/bug fixing of perl5 will not have discontinued. Perl5 development will only stop if people stop developing (tautology alert). Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Larry's not going to stop people who want to do that. As I understand (as opposed to know first hand) these things: Perl 5 will probably have a co-existant lifespan with Perl 6 for about 2-3 years. It takes time for businesses to adopt new languages/versions for their mission critical stuff. One guy on [EMAIL PROTECTED] was running a 5.004 system, which he couldn't upgrade without (multiple) committee approval. He wanted to backinstall OO based modules, which was a bit of a problem. Also, a company I worked for last summer still used Perl 4 - as it was packaged with a commerical program they used (ClearCase, Rational's SCM tool). In my experience with Perl, I'd say it is a stable language despite it's complexity... and most bugs can be worked around. Fretting over syntax changes is hardly worth it, provided it isn't a significant departure from what we know and love. Perl 5 threading and scalability are significant issues. If you use 20 modules in your application, you have to wait for 20 modules to be parsed, compiled, optimised and then run. One of my hopes for Perl 6 is that Larry will squeeze PHP's marketshare. Why? Most ISPs run Perl code under CGI, hence you are forced to use PHP which is built-in to apache on most ISP systems. If Perl 6 allows compilation to bytecode with optimisations, then you might find mod_parrot installed on many more ISP systems. Why mention this? Well, the only way to add dynamic content to a website would be for me to learn another, less flexible language - I'd rather stick to something m/^Perl(?:5|6)$/, even if I have to make a few changes to how I'd use it. Perl 6 will happen, Larry's job at O'Rielly depends on him writing and selling books :) Changing the rules makes it easier to sell more. Most of Perl's syntax is the product of Larry's imagination, either we like it or lump it. I like Perl 5 thus far, and don't think Larry is about change Perl 6 into COBOL/ADA/Befunge/Pascal or whatever. I think this thread should be moved to [EMAIL PROTECTED], since it's kinda not fun. Jonathan Paton __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On 4/17/02 9:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
I find it amazing that someone can make a statement like 99% of the
time, people leave whitespace of the aggregate and the index, just
based on personal experience.
Based on the code *I* have written in the past 20 years, more than
99% of the time people do use whitespace between the aggregate and
the index. ;-)
Must be a European thing. ;-)
Seeing $hash{foo}{bar}{baz} all over,justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape.
Butthatissohardtoread.
Personally, I find C$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} a lot easier to read than
justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape. The braces break it up nicely.
However, once I start to see code like that, I start to think it's time for
a redesign. I don't much care for seeing a hash access go more than two
layers deep.
Using ()'s doesn't mean the parser suddenly understands %hash {key}
is an indexing operator, so that's not going to solve much. :-(
That's true. But the trade-off is significant and, IME, totally worthwhile.
Braces with whitespace in front of them are now always closures. This adds a
great deal of power and flexibility to the design. But if some people just
are lamenting the loss of the whitespace in hash accesses because that's the
standard that C set long ago, the, to quote Larry,
If you want to program in C, program in C. It's a nice language. I use it
occasionally... :-)
--Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On 4/16/02 5:06 PM, Ton Hospel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's very well possible that I'll stubbornly keep using perl5 if perl6
comes out.
Maybe my (mis)understanding from Larry is that Perl 6 will provide a jumping
off platform into better language non-specific things that we may not see at
this time, but things that will become apparent as we start actually using
the new version.
Like being able to write XS in other languages for integration into Perl.
I for one don't understand Larry half the time, but I believe that is part
of him being a genius.
Hell, how long did 'People' moan and groan about Perl 4? (I don't know, I
wasn't aware of Perl until Perl 5 was already out...)
Cheers :)
_Sx
('-Sx- IUDICIUM
//\ Have Computer -
v_/_Will Hack...
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
It's very well possible that I'll stubbornly keep using perl5 if perl6 comes out. Maybe my (mis)understanding from Larry is that Perl 6 will provide a jumping off platform into better language non-specific things that we may not see at this time, but things that will become apparent as we start actually using the new version. Like being able to write XS in other languages for integration into Perl. Haven't you heard? XS is getting dumped, that is one of the primary reasons for developing Perl 6. http://dev.perl.org/rfc/270.pod Jonathan Paton __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:23:42AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
On 4/17/02 9:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
I find it amazing that someone can make a statement like 99% of the
time, people leave whitespace of the aggregate and the index, just
based on personal experience.
Based on the code *I* have written in the past 20 years, more than
99% of the time people do use whitespace between the aggregate and
the index. ;-)
Must be a European thing. ;-)
Seeing $hash{foo}{bar}{baz} all over,justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape.
Butthatissohardtoread.
Personally, I find C$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} a lot easier to read than
justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape. The braces break it up nicely.
However, once I start to see code like that, I start to think it's time for
a redesign. I don't much care for seeing a hash access go more than two
layers deep.
I agree. C$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} is horribly ugly. Your solution
is a redesign. My solution is to use whitespace. The latter is
far easier than the former.
Using ()'s doesn't mean the parser suddenly understands %hash {key}
is an indexing operator, so that's not going to solve much. :-(
That's true. But the trade-off is significant and, IME, totally worthwhile.
Braces with whitespace in front of them are now always closures. This adds a
great deal of power and flexibility to the design.
I think the gain is just the option of not having to write () in if.
If () was still mandatory, there would be no ambiguity when a block
is a hash index and when it cannot be - which means it has to be a
closure.
But if some people just
are lamenting the loss of the whitespace in hash accesses because that's the
standard that C set long ago, the, to quote Larry,
It's not just C. It's also any language than I've programmed in.
It's also a rather significant break from 14 years of perl.
Abigail
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On 4/17/02 12:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed: I think the gain is just the option of not having to write () in if. If () was still mandatory, there would be no ambiguity when a block is a hash index and when it cannot be - which means it has to be a closure. Well, that was a side-effect of Larry not wanting an extra unnatural delimiter -- e.g., parentheses -- for switch statements. He feels, as a linguist, that it reads better. I agree that it's subjective, though, and some will mourn the affect that the loss of parentheses has on hash subscripting. I, however, will not. It's not just C. It's also any language than I've programmed in. It's also a rather significant break from 14 years of perl. I agree that it's a break, but maybe because I almost never use whitespace for hash subscripting, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. And I'm happy to leave out the parentheses. But again, it's subjective. Regards, David -- David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394 http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:23:42AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
On 4/17/02 9:11 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
I find it amazing that someone can make a statement like 99% of
the time, people leave whitespace of the aggregate and the
index, just based on personal experience.
Based on the code *I* have written in the past 20 years, more
than 99% of the time people do use whitespace between the
aggregate and the index. ;-)
Must be a European thing. ;-)
Seeing $hash{foo}{bar}{baz} all
over,justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape.
Butthatissohardtoread.
Personally, I find C$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} a lot easier to read
than justmakeswewanttoignoreallwhitescape. The braces break it up
nicely. However, once I start to see code like that, I start to
think it's time for a redesign. I don't much care for seeing a hash
access go more than two layers deep.
I agree. C$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} is horribly ugly. Your solution
is a redesign. My solution is to use whitespace. The latter is
far easier than the former.
You still can. Just use the '.'
$hash{foo}{bar}{baz} # Before, ugly.
# After. Less ugly.
$hash{foo}
.{bar}
.{baz}
There's still a design issue, if you're doing this as a way of
accessing a 3 dimensional structure then Perl6 is probably going to be
offering syntax along the lines of C$hash{foo ; bar ; baz}, allowing
for more complex slicing (but at the moment that's just tealeaf
reading on my part).
Personally I like the fact that if you add space you need to add
something to disambiguate, but then, I'd likely rewrite the ugly
version into
$hash{foo}
-{bar}
-{baz}
in Perl 5.
--
Piers
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite.
-- Jane Austen?
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On 4/16/02 7:43 AM, Griffith, Shaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
So I take it readability is deprecated?
For instance:
$some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}...{last_key}
can no longer be broken into multiple lines, like this?
$some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
{another_key}
...
{last_key}
Or does it depend on whether {some_key} looks like a statement block or
not?
IIUC, the no whitespace rule only applies before control structure blocks,
such as if {} and while {}, because you need the space before the opening
brace. In other spaces, it's not necessary. So while you'll need to do this:
%some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
{another_key}
...
{last_key} = 'foo';
You'll have to do this for control blocks:
if %some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}...{last_key} {
# do stuff
}
But if you really want to improve legibility, and you find you have a lot of
this sort of thing in your code, I suggest you make a shortcut:
my %scut = %some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}{one};
if %scut.{last_key} { # Perl 6 hashref syntax.
# do stuff
}
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/ Yahoo!: dew7e
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, David Wheeler wrote:
So while you'll need to do this:
%some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
{another_key}
...
{last_key} = 'foo';
You'll have to do this for control blocks:
if %some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}...{last_key} {
# do stuff
}
Ugh, ugh, ugh, that's even worse.
Am I the only person who gets more scared of Perl 6 the more he hears about
it?
Still waiting for the regexp apocalypse with a mixture of hope and fear...
--
Stephen Turner, Cambridge, UKhttp://homepage.ntlworld.com/adelie/stephen/
This is Henman's 8th Wimbledon, and he's only lost 7 matches. BBC, 2/Jul/01
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:03:14AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
On 4/16/02 7:43 AM, Griffith, Shaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
So I take it readability is deprecated?
For instance:
$some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}...{last_key}
can no longer be broken into multiple lines, like this?
$some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
{another_key}
...
{last_key}
Or does it depend on whether {some_key} looks like a statement block or
not?
IIUC, the no whitespace rule only applies before control structure blocks,
such as if {} and while {}, because you need the space before the opening
brace.
Eh, no. You got it backwards. It's not that you need a space before
a control block, it is that If you put a space before a {, it *IS*
a control block.
It's the space that determines what follows is a control block.
In other spaces, it's not necessary.
It's not that it isn't necessary. It's forbidden. Unlike in C, awk,
Java, Pascal, or even in the language of the whitespace, Python. Any
language I can remember programming in in the last 2 decades allows
optional whitespace between the aggregate and the index, without
parsing things differently.
In other spaces, it's not necessary. So while you'll need to do this:
%some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
{another_key}
...
{last_key} = 'foo';
That's a syntax error. You've some stuff in void context, and then
you're assigning something to a block.
You'll have to do this for control blocks:
The problem is, because the ()'s are dropped, the parser cannot know
where the control block starts, hence the new rule any opening brace
following whitespace will be a block.
if %some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}...{last_key} {
# do stuff
}
But if you really want to improve legibility, and you find you have a lot of
this sort of thing in your code, I suggest you make a shortcut:
my %scut = %some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}{one};
if %scut.{last_key} { # Perl 6 hashref syntax.
# do stuff
}
Having to *add* code isn't actually making a shortcut, is it? ;-)
Abigail
RE: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
Stephen Turner writes: Am I the only person who gets more scared of Perl 6 the more he hears about it? No you're not. I'm sure many people, myself included, share the same mixed feelings towards Perl 6. I don't even feel comfortable calling it Perl anymore. Still waiting for the regexp apocalypse with a mixture of hope and fear... Somehow, hearing Damian shout You will love the new syntax at the last YAPC, wasn't enough. I still feel some animosity towards Perl 6; like its gonna take over Perl 5 completely. A feeling not very different from that I have towards Python! --Ala
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
Griffith, Shaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Abigail wrote:
What am I missing?
What you are missing is the new white space rule:
\s+{ }
shall be always be a block. Hence the difference between
%hash {foo} and %hash{foo}.
So I take it readability is deprecated?
For instance:
$some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}{another_key}...{last_key}
can no longer be broken into multiple lines, like this?
$some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
{another_key}
...
{last_key}
I *think* you can't do that as written. However, you can disambiguate
with
%some_nested_hash{very_long_descriptive_key}
.{another_key}
...
.{last_key}
The '.' operator is optional in cases where there's no ambiguity, when
you have intervening spaces things start to get ambiguous, so use an
explicit '.'
--
Piers
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite.
-- Jane Austen?
Re: Whitespace and Blocks (was RE: Fisher-Yates shuffle)
In article Pine.LNX.3.96.1020416171808.1438C-10@gentoo, Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Am I the only person who gets more scared of Perl 6 the more he hears about it? Nope. What I've heard about it 'till now I don't particularly like. It's very well possible that I'll stubbornly keep using perl5 if perl6 comes out.
