Based on the tally of the opinions, I'm rejecting this ticket:
AlexDaniel: +1
Zoffix: -1
Jonathan Scott Duff: -1
Coke: -1
> Sorry for being think but what is say (:?foo); meant to do? The OP just says
> it should "work".
I think that's pretty good evidence the extra syntax
Based on the tally of the opinions, I'm rejecting this ticket:
AlexDaniel: +1
Zoffix: -1
Jonathan Scott Duff: -1
Coke: -1
> Sorry for being think but what is say (:?foo); meant to do? The OP just says
> it should "work".
I think that's pretty good evidence the extra syntax
The OP said :?foo should work because :foo and :!foo work. I don't follow
the logic. How are those things related? Why should :foo and :!foo imply
:?foo? (In my head it makes as much sense as ":foo and :!foo implies
:*foo", which is to say, none.)
I don't see any benefit to adding a :?foo
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:12:31 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:53:26 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This should work:
> >
> > Code:
> > say (:?foo);
> >
> > Result:
> > ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> > Bogus statement
> > at -e:1
> > --> say (:⏏?foo);
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 09:12:31 -0700, c...@zoffix.com wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:53:26 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This should work:
> >
> > Code:
> > say (:?foo);
> >
> > Result:
> > ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> > Bogus statement
> > at -e:1
> > --> say (:⏏?foo);
Another interesting thing is that if this is implemented, then it will make it
possible to use ? in other places where is used. For example, it
will allow %h:?exists . It seems that it will also affect character classes
(e.g. <:?Ll>). Some of these totally make sense, some not so much. But we
For those who don't agree that there is a connection between ? and !… Actually,
there are some other places where ?↔! connection is implied. In fact, I will
probably never list all of them.
In regexes:
* always succeeds, always fails (and no question implied)
* tests for truthy and falsey
“? doesn't imply truth it implies a question”
This is an interesting point actually. pmurias++ expressed the same idea.
I find it hard to understand this fully, but I guess I'll have to accept that
there are different ways to think about it :)
For example:
“The ? prefix asks an expression
For those reading this on RT, here's the previous comment in a readable way:
I wouldn't be so eager to judge the proposal based on the original post.
Sometimes I submit tickets fast, and sometimes ideas are not conveyed as
clearly as I assumed.
“How are those things related?”
These were the
I wouldn't be so eager to judge the proposal based on the original post.
Sometimes I submit tickets fast, and sometimes ideas are not conveyed as
clearly as I assumed.
“How are those things related?”
These were the examples of the pair syntax (what works and what doesn't). Now,
?↔! pattern is
The OP said :?foo should work because :foo and :!foo work. I don't follow
the logic. How are those things related? Why should :foo and :!foo imply
:?foo? (In my head it makes as much sense as ":foo and :!foo implies
:*foo", which is to say, none.)
I don't see any benefit to adding a :?foo
2¢:
? doesn't imply truth it implies a question. The ? prefix asks an
expression whether it's True or False. When used as a sigil like $?FILE
it's asking the compiler about something.
‘:foo’ sets foo to True. ‘:!foo’ sets it to False. ‘:?foo’ looks like it's
trying to ask something a question,
Yes, I should have been more clear.
Basically, it should work like (:foo) does, which is construct foo => True
pair.
On 2017-07-22 19:25:19, lloyd.fo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorry for being think but what is
> say (:?foo);
> meant to do? The OP just says it should "work".
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017
Sorry for being think but what is
say (:?foo);
meant to do? The OP just says it should "work".
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:05 AM Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> sub foo($bar!) { say $bar }; foo(42)
>
> On 2017-07-22 11:19:41,
Sorry for being think but what is
say (:?foo);
meant to do? The OP just says it should "work".
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 6:05 AM Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev via RT <
perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org> wrote:
> sub foo($bar!) { say $bar }; foo(42)
>
> On 2017-07-22 11:19:41,
sub foo($bar!) { say $bar }; foo(42)
On 2017-07-22 11:19:41, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Eh. The effort required to implement the feature is much less than
> having
> discussions *like this*. I'll try to be quick.
>
> “there's large possibility of introducing some unwanted ambiguity
>
Eh. The effort required to implement the feature is much less than having
discussions *like this*. I'll try to be quick.
“there's large possibility of introducing some unwanted ambiguity somewhere”
A good thing to keep in mind indeed.
I don't really like these discussions before actual PRs, but
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:53:26 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> This should work:
>
> Code:
> say (:?foo);
>
> Result:
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> Bogus statement
> at -e:1
> --> say (:⏏?foo);
> expecting any of:
> colon pair
>
>
> Because these work:
>
>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:53:26 -0700, alex.jakime...@gmail.com wrote:
> This should work:
>
> Code:
> say (:?foo);
>
> Result:
> ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling -e
> Bogus statement
> at -e:1
> --> say (:⏏?foo);
> expecting any of:
> colon pair
>
>
> Because these work:
>
>
# New Ticket Created by Aleks-Daniel Jakimenko-Aleksejev
# Please include the string: [perl #131781]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=131781 >
This should work:
Code:
say (:?foo);
Result:
===SORRY!=== Error
20 matches
Mail list logo
