On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:14:36PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> > Besides, I would expect an C to actually be a loop of it's own,
> > on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for".
>
> So, you're suggesting we add C then? Just bec
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote:
> Besides, I would expect an C to actually be a loop of it's own,
> on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for".
So, you're suggesting we add C then? Just because it's
possible doesn't mean it's necessary.
Luke
> Of course it brings other less wholesome things to mind like "elsfor"
> and "elsloop" and "if ... elsfor" and "for ... elsif ... elsloop ...
> else", but why not?
Well, I agree with the concept, but boyoboy those names ain't gonna
fly. We'll have to head down the road of
unlessfor
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:24:13PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 14:11, Allison Randal wrote:
> > The "else" of a loop construct isn't really the same as the "else" of an
> > C. You can't use an C for one thing.
>
> Why not? What would be wrong with:
>
> for @x {
>
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 14:11, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:49:23AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Hmmm... how about:
>
> for $results.get_next() {
> print $_;
> LAST { print "Done."; }
> ELSE { print "No results."; }
> }
>
> The "else" of a loop construct isn't really
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Why not use a 16 bit int and specify that languages should use
> : default precedence levels spread through the range but keeping the
> : bottom 8 bits all zero. That gives 255 levels between '3' and '4'.
> : Seems like enough to me!
> :
> : Floating po
> This is now extensible to any number of precedence levels, and you can
> now use simple string comparison to compare any two precedences. It even
> short circuits the comparison as soon as it finds a character that
> differs.
>
> Gee, maybe I should patent this.
Too late. Amazon has already p
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:49:23AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Trey Harris wrote:
>
> > So:
> >
> > for $results.get_next() {
> > FIRST { print "Results:"; }
> > NEXT { print ""; }
> > } else {
> > print "No results.";
> > }
> >
> > Do I have that right?
>
> Yes. Presuming Larry decide
Buddha Buck writes:
: So you'd have something like:
:
: sub operator:mult($a, $b) is looser('*') is inline {...}
: sub operator:add($a, $b) is tighter("+") is inline {...}
: sub operator:div($a,$b) is looser("/") is inline {...}
:
: assuming default Perl5 precedences for *, *, and / you would ha
At 09:45 AM 04-26-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Tim Bunce writes:
>: For perl at least I thought Larry has said that you'll be able to
>: create new ops but only give them the same precedence as any one
>: of the existing ops.
>
>Close, but not quite. What I think I said was that you can't speci
Tim Bunce writes:
: For perl at least I thought Larry has said that you'll be able to
: create new ops but only give them the same precedence as any one
: of the existing ops.
Close, but not quite. What I think I said was that you can't specify
a raw precedence--you can only specify a precedence
At 5:05 PM +0100 4/26/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:33:06AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 2:26 PM +0100 4/26/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>> >On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> >> At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
>> >> >OK, but th
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:33:06AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 2:26 PM +0100 4/26/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >> At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
> >> >OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
> >>
At 2:26 PM +0100 4/26/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
>> >OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
>> >precedence. What do you do if you don't think that that's enough
>>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 10:29:58AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 18:20, Damian Conway wrote:
> > Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > before { ... } # run before first iteration,
> > > # only if there is at least one iteration
> >
> > Larry is still con
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 18:20, Damian Conway wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> > before { ... } # run before first iteration,
> > # only if there is at least one iteration
>
> Larry is still considering allowing a C block that would do this.
[...]
> This will be called a
At Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:40:14 +0100,
Andy Wardley wrote:
> This is an approach I've used to great effect in the Template Toolkit.
> In this case, the iterator controlling a 'FOREACH' loop is aliased to
> the 'loop' variable
>
>[% FOREACH x = y %]
> [% "\n" IF loop.first %]
>
>
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:49:23AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> for $results.get_next() {
> FIRST { print "Results:"; }
> NEXT { print ""; }
> LAST { print "Done."; }
> print $_;
> }
How about something like this:
for $results.each() {
print
18 matches
Mail list logo
