On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
I'd really rather not, and I don't think that was Larry's intention. I
think rather it was "perl 5 warning/strict levels", not "parse as perl 5
code". At least I hope that's the case...
well, personally I would rather that
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Then it might be easier to write modules that are testable without a test
driver. If you run the module directly, some distinguished block of code
could be executed that wouldn't be if the module were "included" via
Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have not looked at SelfTest, but I have always done this with
unless (defined wantarray) {
# Self Test
}
This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is
evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is in a void context.
Nice.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
unless (defined wantarray) {
# Self Test
}
This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is
evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is in a void context.
Although Gisle's recent patch changes this for
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
One-liners run on a Perl 6 binary should just be Perl 6 code. Do we
really have to worry about backwards compatibility with one liners?
[ . . . ]
Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be
troublesome.
Yes, precisely. I
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole
are strict/-w by default. But the "module main" tag causes the same
problem Larry is opposed to with BASIC/PLUS "EXTEND". That is, every
Perl 6 program begins with "module main".
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Porter wrote:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
the more compatible
with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
I don't believe that's necessarily true.
If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
people will adopt it, especially if they're
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
unless (defined wantarray) {
# Self Test
}
This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is
evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is
Andy Dougherty wrote:
Yes, precisely. I often have one-liners embedded in larger shell scripts.
Most of those survived the perl4-perl5 transition intact. I'd hope the
same can be said for the perl5-perl6 transition.
This is exactly the situation that Larry mentioned on Wednesday as
an
David Grove writes:
: [1] Strongs is pure Koine. I'd think Larry would be more of the Ionic
: type. g
You might say I get a charge out of Homer. :-)
Actually, I've done more Attic than Ionic. And I haven't done enough
of any of them to get very far from my lexicon. But I started Greek at
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
: "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Nathan This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked
: Nathan with end up writing:
:
: Nathan@foo[0]
:
: Nathan Which works.
:
: "Works", for some odd meaning of the word "works".
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:36:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
There will probably be optional modifiers before colon
for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an
inner:* operator from and outer:* operator.
I balk at the proposition of Yet
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:36:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace.
Where?
It also means that every operator has a function name,
I would think that would be the case, regardless of the
form the general operator syntax takes.
And functions
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:52:47PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Although Gisle's recent patch changes this for "do" at least.
Hm, I did not see that. Can someone explain what the patch changed
or give me a link to the
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Ah OK. So I assume that
do "you";
will do the file in a void context
Theoretically, yes. (ie, probably not.)
--
If computer science was a science, computer "scientists" would study what
computer systems do and draw
It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque
filenames for "opening" them and doing IO on
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:57:28PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Ah OK. So I assume that
do "you";
will do the file in a void context
Theoretically, yes. (ie, probably not.)
From bleadperl t/op/do.t:
if (open(DO, "$$.16")) {
It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque
filenames for "opening" them and doing
On 4/6/01 2:17 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
P.S. Larry's Second Law of Language Redesign: Larry gets the colon.
My initial reaction: Larry can keep it! ;)
(go ahead, make me a believer... :)
-John
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:19:30PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
open-ended story. It is certainly nice
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So URLs are not
literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
may be too simplistic.
Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them.
I don't know if this is something we want to follow Rebol's
lead on, but it's something to look at.
--
John
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Doesn't look like another namespace, but rather an extension of an
existing one to me.
An extension of a namespace? What's that?
Either "modifiers" will be symbols in an existing namespace,
or they will be in their own namespace.
--
John Porter
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace.
Where?
Modifiers.
And functions have attributes, so no new namespace.
You're saying modifiers and attributes will live in the
same namespace? Possible, I guess, but not necessarily
logical.
--
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:34:07PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And functions have attributes, so no new namespace.
You're saying modifiers and attributes will live in the
same namespace? Possible, I guess, but not necessarily
logical.
Hmm. No, come to think of it, that wouldn't work.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So URLs are not
literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
may be too simplistic.
Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them.
I doubt it. telephone:? fax:? lpp:?
if (open(BLAH, "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
Ah yes. You did say "scheme", didn't you?
Well then, consider the PR value. ;-)
Adam Turoff wrote:
If Rebol can handle all of those URL schemes, why bother with Perl
in the first place?
Should I legitimize that with a response?
--
John Porter
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:37:35PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So URLs are not
literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
may be too simplistic.
Yeah. But Rebol manages
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:32:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Doesn't look like another namespace, but rather an extension of an
existing one to me.
An extension of a namespace? What's that?
Either "modifiers" will be symbols in an existing namespace,
or they
On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote:
This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't
see any reason that:
@foo[1,2] = STDIN;
shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why
Fair enough
@bar = @foo * 12;
shouldn't assign to
Richard Proctor wrote:
but what should
@bar = @foo x 2;
do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current
behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs)
How is one significantly less useful than the other?
--
John Porter
Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as
accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening
of that path other than the fact that it is a URL. This renders it pretty
useless as a structure to be
Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So URLs are not
literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
may be too simplistic.
Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them.
I doubt
if (open(BLAH,":URL","mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
Now PerlIO/URL.pm has to know the semantics of /^mailto:/.
If it does it can do DNS lookup for MX record for north.pole and
presumably fail and return undef.
Oops sorry that is perl5 ;-)
Which part? "Presumably", "fail",
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:42:18PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as
accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening
of that path other than the fact that
On Fri 06 Apr, John Porter wrote:
Richard Proctor wrote:
but what should
@bar = @foo x 2;
do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current
behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs)
How is one significantly less useful than the other?
Its current
Richard Proctor wrote:
perhaps you are thinking of,
the current behavior of @bar = (@foo) x 2
Yes, right. Opps.
--
John Porter
Dan Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if (open(BLAH,":URL","mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
Now PerlIO/URL.pm has to know the semantics of /^mailto:/.
If it does it can do DNS lookup for MX record for north.pole and
presumably fail and return undef.
Oops sorry that is perl5 ;-)
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:17:49AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Hence, :+ would be pairwise array addition.
Sounds quite reasonable.
There will probably be optional modifiers before colon
for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an
inner:* operator from and outer:*
James Mastros wrote:
print $::OUT http://www.wall.org/~larry/index.html;
Please, no! A URL isn't a /new/ type of literal, really.
Either it's a wierd form of a literal list, or it's a
wierd type of file name, so you should open() it. Or it's
a self-quoting literal, like
David Whipp wrote:
It would be nice to say:
$mySite = http://www.foo.bar/text.html;
Vs.
$mySite = new URL 'http://www.foo.bar/text.html';
I am far from convinced.
--
John Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/5/01 12.15:
2. package vs. module/class
Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one
swoop. Cool.
Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting. Forget
p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the
John Porter wrote:
$mySite = http://www.foo.bar/text.html;
Vs.
$mySite = new URL 'http://www.foo.bar/text.html';
I am far from convinced.
Simon Coxens wrote
A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program
in than some that do.
-- Dennis M. Ritchie
Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to
perl6-language?
*tap* *tap* is this thing on?
Nat
Me, I've been racking my brain to figure out whether
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
I'd really rather not, and I don't think that was Larry's intention. I
think rather it was "perl 5 warning/strict levels", not "parse as perl 5
code". At least I hope that's the
Dave Storrs wrote:
being backwards compatible is unlikely to
_cost_ us adherents and might well gain us some.
Yes, all other things being equal. But will they be?
IOW: at what cost backwards compatibility?
--
John Porter
46 matches
Mail list logo
