Maybe of interest to some, probably of no interest to most, but this is the
first time I've noticed the use of a perl6 regexp flag in the wild. Or
however wild #london.pm on IRC passes for:
richardc Trelane: not really - I think I spent longer debugger
+WWW::UsePerl::Journal than I meant to
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
term (which is how we recognize prefix operators). The one exception I can
On 2002-10-08 at 17:15:06, Larry Wall wrote:
Seriously, () is just a special token. We could easily have used a
special token like NULLLIST instead. What does INTERCAL use?
Well, INTERCAL doesn't have lists per se, but it does have arrays, whose
size is set by assignment: the lvalue is the
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
: put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
: else.
Could perhaps unify with C... Wouldn't hurt for it to be
non-associative like C...
'Is'
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: : but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
: : put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
: : else.
:
: Could perhaps unify with C...
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
: and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
: term (which is how we recognize
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Larry Wall writes:
If only we had Unicode editors, we could just force everyone to use
the infinity symbol where they mean it. It seems a shame to make a
special case of the .. operator. Maybe we should ... to mean and so
on forever:
a[0...;
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:35:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Would that mean that three other special cases of postfix .. might exist?
:
: 0..; # useful for return 0..;
I bet the
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
might be handier in real life. (It means to exclude the endpoint,
so 0...4 is the same as 0..3. But then, that's kind of odd too.)
humor
Uh-oh: my life is
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brad Hughes wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: [...]
: Maybe we should ... to mean and so on forever:
:
: a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
:
: Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
: might be handier in real life.
:
: No more yada-yada-yada?
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I've always wondered what the ! postfix operator means. The mathematicians
think they know. :-)
The Ruby folks think they know. They're method name conventions.
From Programming Ruby
Methods that act as queries are often
Yes, you heard right. A cookbook describing stuff that hasn't yet been
designed, for a language that doesn't yet exist. Having flashbacks to
your college years, anyone?
The purpose of the Cookbook is to foster discussion on perl6 OO
concepts, and to start documenting the decisions that are
12 matches
Mail list logo
