Re: say vs print for .WHAT
Patrick R. Michaud writes: print will stringify its arguments and write them to $*OUT. say will invoke .gist on its arguments and write them (along with a final newline) to $*OUT. Hi there. What's the rationale for the difference there? Under what circumstances are each likely to be useful? Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2
Re: Something wrong with str.reverse
David Landgren writes: On 22/06/2010 09:07, Richard Hainsworth wrote: I was going to suggest this too after reading PM's post. I would suggest that for whatever reason a list operator was used on a scalar, including a hold over form another language (Ruby and perl5), a warning should be issued. Most likely to be an error. For a nop? Ouch. Not for any possible no-ops; but for those which people are likely to make by mistake and can easily be detected. In the case of reverse it's pretty similar to the list versus scalar check that Perl 5 is currently making in order to determine which action to take. Could this not be pushed off onto a lint-like/PBP analysis? If you want the compiler to moan about every construct that may not be doing what you think it's doing... Not every possible construct, but things at about the same level as those that Perl 5 warns about. you don't want to do that every time the program is run. no warnings; Smylers -- http://twitter.com/Smylers2
Re: the file slurping is not working
Tom Christiansen writes: Larry wrote: But we're trying very hard to get rid of most such special cases in Perl 6. Usually we can get the recommended Perl 6 code to just DWYM as a fallout of the general semantics, Oh. You mean like for directories containing a file whose name is the 1-char string, 0, and that file pre-emptively terminating a readdir loop the way it used to. I can't find it in the spec (link anybody?) but I'd expect the return value to be something which stringifies to 0 but boolifies to false, meaning it won't terminate the loop. That way we get the intuitive behaviour, but don't need a special case. And the general mechanism used to make this work is something available for all Perl programs to take advantage of, not an exception that requires baking into the core language internals. Smylers
Re: Logo considerations
jason switzer writes: Basically, the perl community has largely adopted TIMTOWTDI as a philosophy ... For that, a cluster of arrows in different directions seems fitting Or a toad, called Tim -- frogs are cuter than arrows! (Though timtowtdi is already associated with Perl 5, so perhaps not what Perl 6 should be emphasizing.) Smylers
Re: Rakduo Logo Proposal
Stephen Weeks writes: http://pleasedieinafire.net/~tene/logo/gimelanarchy.html The main association for me, with the reference to the anarchist symbol, is that we've kept going and produced something good despite the large sentiment of You're taking too long, you'll never succeed, etc. out there. Others include the somewhat chaotic state of Perl 6 development at times, the loose and informal organization in Perl 6 development, etc. I see what you're getting at there, but obviously if chosen the logo would be seen by people who're unaware of your explanation of the analogy, and so there's a risk they'd see a more literal link with a particular political movement. That could cause some awkwardness in getting Perl 6 accepted by those with different political persuasions. Perl 6 has no political views (well, outside the narrow field of programming language design, which isn't considered a field of politics by most major parties), so it wouldn't be beneficial to give the perception of any poliical links, even inadvertently. Smylers Just an idea. Please discuss. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimel#Hebrew_Gimel [2]: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.users/2009/01/msg938.html [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_symbolism
