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,
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 ) {
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
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,
The
On 4/18/02 5:37 AM, Jonathan E. Paton [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
If I get it right, the main trouble here is that there are no sensible
bracketing delimiters left on the keyboard...
Not unless we perhaps starting getting into high Unicode territory...
Scan keyboard...
found one! How
David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| while () {
| # do stuff to $_
| }
Don't you consider \\ to be outright beatiful? More like a piece of art
than an operator... or more of a tie fighter?
\FH\
Now, that's a tie fighter with
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 = $hash{foo}{bar};
Having said that, I don't believe that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (c. church) writes:
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree. C$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}
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 (
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
[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,
David Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
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
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?
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
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
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
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:
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
25 matches
Mail list logo
