Those new properties thingies are looking powerful. Does this mean we
can now do:
sub decorate ($obj) {
$obj is ad_hoc_method(sub {...});
}
and expect C$obj.ad_hoc_method(...) to call the appropriate
subroutine?
--
Piers Cawley
www.iterative-software.com
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:32:40PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Since it's something underlying Perl, I'd suggest a decrement of
Perl, which would of course be Perk. The Java engine would have
to be Perj, I guess, which seems fitting somehow.
Shouldn't the Java engine be Perk (or perhaps Perc)
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 03:53:53PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
the larger question remains, is sandboxing something a language
should support at all, or is it best left to the OS to provide
a solid chroot facility?
CPANTS will have to try and clunk a sandbox together and I have no
illusions
On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:14:47 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
I am going to miss doublequoting being the default quoting for
here strings. I find that to be a very nice optimization and
would like to know more about the reasoning behind taking it
away.
I was already panicking when I saw this
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:20:13AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Building a good sandbox with resource limits on a VMS system is trivial. I
expect it may even be easier with IBM's big iron OSes.
I'm sure it is. I'm just worried about having lots of:
if( $^O =~ /VMS/ ) {
do
Piers Cawley wrote:
sub decorate ($obj) {
$obj is ad_hoc_method(sub {...});
}
and expect C$obj.ad_hoc_method(...)
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
???
Is usually implies a generalization link,
not a
Bart Lateur wrote:
I hardly ever restrict
myself to word characters in the end delimiter, anyway.
Interesting -- I *always* use EOF, because that's the
only one vim knows a priori how to highlight correctly. :-/
--
John Porter
It's so mysterious, the land of tears.
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what the other expected uses are.
--
Michael G. Schwern
Memory limits we should be able to do, assuming Perl 6 continues to
have its own malloc.
Well... Perl doesn't use it's own malloc *that* widely. E.g. Linux
doesn't, since at least 5.005_03. FreeBSD doesn't. OpenBSD doesn't.
Darwin doesn't. AIX doesn't. IRIX doesn't. Starting from 5.8.0
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:03:05AM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Memory limits we should be able to do, assuming Perl 6 continues to
have its own malloc.
Well... Perl doesn't use it's own malloc *that* widely.
Who knows what Perl 6 will do internally, but we'll probably have some
sort
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what
Michael G Schwern wrote:
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true.
But the general form, something like
$thing is a_property
or
$thing is a_behavior
flows considerably worse, IMHO.
--
John Porter
It's so mysterious, the land of tears.
Michael G Schwern writes:
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what the other expected uses are.
$foo has truth; # :-)
This leads naturally to:
$foo has the_buddha_nature;
$foo has ten_days_to_live;
$foo has meddled_in_my_affairs_one_too_many_times! # !
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
$foo has true
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:47:18AM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Michael G Schwern writes:
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what the other expected uses are.
$foo has truth; # :-)
This leads naturally to:
$foo has the_buddha_nature;
$foo has
@pi are square;
@dogs have fleas;
@talks have stalled;
--
John Porter
On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:49:48 -0500 , Garrett Goebel wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what the other expected uses are.
Maybe it is just
At 10:49 AM 05-04-2001 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 03:00 PM 05-04-2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 09:51:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:51:43AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
@pi are square;
Pi are round. Cake are square.
--
Tad McClellan SGML consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Perl programming
Fort Worth, Texas
In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
ambiguious.
It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar].
But if it is spliting $foo and {this is in curlies} this will be
is = typing, inheritance, etc.
has = composition, aggregation, etc.
True, but those are basic OO concepts, which don't neatly apply to
property-lists (a very old Lisp concept that Perl6 is adopting).
is does seem to imply an OO is-a relationship. So lets run
with it!
If $foo is an
Richard Proctor writes:
: In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
: ambiguious.
:
: It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
: proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar].
Hmm, yes, that's a problem. I'd
Larry Wall writes:
: Richard Proctor writes:
: : In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
: : ambiguious.
: :
: : It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
: : proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar].
:
:
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Richard Proctor writes:
: In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I
: believe this may be ambiguious.
:
: It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is
: also being proposed for a null token disambiguate context.
:
At 11:10 AM 5/4/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
: Richard Proctor writes:
: : In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this
may be
: : ambiguious.
: :
: : It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
: : proposed for a null token
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
the less pleasant looking bits? $foo1 (where and are the double
angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
characters
At 10:11 PM 5/4/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
the less pleasant looking bits? $foo1 (where and are the double
angle characters) as an alternative to
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
: the less pleasant looking bits? $foo1 (where and are the double
: angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
: characters handy?
Actually, my first thought a year
There's a lot of good stuff in Apoc2, but I did have at least one
semantic concern. In it, there's this proposal:
: There is likely to be no need for an explicit input operator in Perl 6,
: and I want the angles for something else. I/O handles are a subclass of
: iterators, and I think general
Not a problem. \Q means quotemeta, except immediately following
a interpolated identifier. You want to start metaquoting immediately
after a curious interpolation? use \Q\Q.
I have been regularly, since I fingured out how, doing things like
print the time is now
if we kept with their current meaning but added it
as a handier whitespace quoter I would like that.
p5:
@things = one two three four five;
_is_ currently a syntax error. In my mind. Not in my 5.005_03.
however, where it appears to behave just like qw does,
except that it does
At 03:51 PM 5/4/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
: the less pleasant looking bits? $foo1 (where and are the double
: angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
: characters
David L. Nicol writes:
: Not a problem. \Q means quotemeta, except immediately following
: a interpolated identifier. You want to start metaquoting immediately
: after a curious interpolation? use \Q\Q.
The word except should be a red flag that you're trying to define an
exception. We're
Edward Peschko writes:
: also - why does it have to be tied to perl (in name) at all?
Er, because we're writing it?
: I like the idea
: that it would *not* be tied to perl, ie: it would be more generic if it was
: not named after it.
Well, the fact that Tcl and Tk both start with T didn't
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
: while ($STDIN) { ... }
I'm wondering what this will do?
$thingy = $STDIN;
This seems to have two possibilities:
1. Make a copy of $STDIN
This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
just like
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:34:24PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
@things = one two three four five;
_is_ currently a syntax error. In my mind. Not in my 5.005_03.
however, where it appears to behave just like qw does,
except that it does interpolation, which qw does not.
And shell
I'm wondering what this will do?
$thingy = $STDIN;
This seems to have two possibilities:
1. Make a copy of $STDIN
This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
just like the current while (FOO) magic we all know and occasionally
[apologies if this is a duplicate, but my mail's been dropping]
There's a lot of good stuff in Apoc2, but I did have at least one
semantic concern. In it, there's this proposal:
: There is likely to be no need for an explicit input operator in Perl 6,
: and I want the angles for something else.
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 11:13:40AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
$STDIN.next is the current plan.
Ah, OK. Crystal ball was a bit cloudy there.
--
Putting heated bricks close to the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups.
Simon Cozens writes:
: On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
: : while ($STDIN) { ... }
: I'm wondering what this will do?
: $thingy = $STDIN;
: This seems to have two possibilities:
: 1. Make a copy of $STDIN
:
: This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean*
: This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
: just like the current while (FOO) magic we all know and occasionally
: love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: explicit readline to a variable other than $_
It would be $FOO.next, but
Dan Sugalski writes:
: That's cool. I was just thinking it might not be a bad idea for us to set=20
: some equivalencies up in advance. If not, that's fine too. (I'll just slip=
: =20
: them in while you're not looking... :)
Hmm. Harks back to the colonial era: I claim these brackets in the
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I'm wondering what this will do?
$thingy = $STDIN;
This seems to have two possibilities:
1. Make a copy of $STDIN
2. Read a line from $STDIN
While perhaps inconsistent, I'd really rather it did #2. Here's the
Has anyone suggested Oyster, or is that too obvious?
__
Matt Youell - Think different, just like everyone else.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.youell.com/matt/
While perhaps inconsistent, I'd really rather it did #2. Here's the
basic argument... compare how often you dup a filehandle with how
often you read from one. Duping is swamped by several orders of
magnitude. Dup with $fh = $STDIN.copy; (or whatever). $line =
$STDIN.next should still
From: Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 9:46 PM
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I'm wondering what this will do?
$thingy = $STDIN;
This seems to have two possibilities:
1. Make a copy of
From: Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN concerns
You know, I hear what you're saying, but it really makes the little hairs
on
my neck stand up. Just imaging trying to teach this:
$a = $b;# assignment or
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:02:14PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
While perhaps inconsistent, I'd really rather it did #2. Here's the
basic argument... compare how often you dup a filehandle with how
often you read from one. Duping is swamped by several orders of
magnitude. Dup with $fh =
First off, before I forget to mention it, nice job on Apoc2 Larry! You are
the man. I know alot of us on p6l can seem like harsh critics at times, but
it's only because we love Perl so much. ;-)
Anyways, in addition to the $file.next stuff, I'm curious about a few
clarifications on the new
I'm interested in what happens with interactions:
$a = @b;
Does this:
1. Get the length (doesn't seem to make sense now)
No. length(@b) or @b.length() for that.
2. Pull a reference to @b (like Perl5's $a = \@b)
Yep. Scalar context eval of arrays,
Nathan Wiger writes:
: : This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
: : just like the current while (FOO) magic we all know and occasionally
: : love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: : explicit readline to a variable other than $_
:
$a = @b;
2. Pull a reference to @b (like Perl5's $a = \@b)
Yep. Scalar context eval of arrays, hashes, and subs produces a reference.
Perfect.
Similarly, how about:
%c = @d;
Does this:
1. Create a hash w/ alternating keys/vals like
We do have to worry about the Cnext loop control function though.
It's possible that in
FOO: while (1) {
next FOO if /foo/;
...
}
the CFOO label is actually being recognized as a pseudo-package
name! The loop could well be an object whose full name is CMY::FOO.
Or something
: also - why does it have to be tied to perl (in name) at all?
Er, because we're writing it?
: I like the idea
: that it would *not* be tied to perl, ie: it would be more generic if it was
: not named after it.
Well, the fact that Tcl and Tk both start with T didn't stop people
On 5/4/01 11:09 PM, Nathan Wiger wrote:
The real trick is what to do with these:
Note: stabbing wildly here... :)
%a = (%b, %c);
%a = (stringify(\%b) = \%c); # Perl 5-ish
%a = (%b.str = %c); # Perl 6 equiv.
%d = (@e, @f);
%d = (stringify(\@e) = \@f); # Perl 5-ish
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 11:23:12PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
On 5/4/01 11:09 PM, Nathan Wiger wrote:
The real trick is what to do with these:
Note: stabbing wildly here... :)
%a = (%b, %c);
%a = (stringify(\%b) = \%c); # Perl 5-ish
%a = (%b.str = %c); # Perl 6
On 5/4/01 11:47 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
Horrors is right. The default perl5 behaviour is *useful*. I use the
%b=(%a,%c)
metaphor all of the time.
I believe you can get the Perl 5 functionality by throwing a few *
characters in there somewhere...
Why not just keep it simple?
Based on
Horrors is right. The default perl5 behaviour is *useful*. I use the
%b=(%a,%c)
metaphor all of the time.
Why not just keep it simple? And perl5-ish. Two contexts, scalar and list,
hashes NOT a context of its own.
I agree. But what to do with:
(%a, %b) = (%c, %d);
Surely that shouldn't
On 5/5/01 12:06 AM, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Maybe we need a way to say flatten these together.
I'm going to throw out a new : op here:
[snip]
Hmmm... I kinda like that... Am I missing anything?
Maybe the fact that Larry's already claimed the colon? :)
-John
As a . doubter form the earlier threads, I'd just like to say that Apoc. 2
has gone a long way towards making me feel better about . as the method call
thingie...both by explaining all the neat things . does in Perl 6, and by
avoiding the potentially distressing introduction of the replacement
Maybe we need a new flattening operator. I don't think the proposed := by
itself would do everything we need to do. Maybe we need a way to say
flatten these together. I'm going to throw out a new : op here:
%a = (%b, %c); # same as %a = %b
%a = (%b : %c);# flattened
At 07:56 PM 5/4/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Nathan Wiger writes:
: : This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
: : just like the current while (FOO) magic we all know and occasionally
: : love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: :
At 06:40 PM 5/4/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: That's cool. I was just thinking it might not be a bad idea for us to
: set some equivalencies up in advance. If not, that's fine too. (I'll just
: slip them in while you're not looking... :)
Hmm. Harks back to the colonial
Dan Sugalski writes:
I dunno. Color me unconvinced--I do use the enough in non-while context
(and in non-implied while context) to make the whole idea of next feel
rather... nasty. And $FOO.next? Yuck. Reading lines/records in is one of
the most fundamental things one can do in a
In lists.projects.perl.language, you wrote:
It's likely to work better in Perl 6. To mean what it currently
means, you'll probably have to write something like:
@foo[0] := STDIN;
The colon here is not functioning merely to make the assignment look
like Pascal. It means, in this case,
65 matches
Mail list logo
