On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling slightly deflated. Given the chance to re-design
Lisp
Damian Conway writes:
Not equivalent at all. C$foo~bar means append $foo to the argument list
of subroutine Cbar. Cfoo.bar means make C$foo the invocant for method
bar.
Curiously enough, the confusions I'm hearing over this issue are, to me, the
strongest argument yet for using
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Of course, _I'd_ even prefer using - and - as the 'piping' operators,
and having ~ or | for pointy sub, because then $a-foo and $a.foo
really _could_ be the same thing, 'cept for precedence. But
Smylers wrote:
Thom Boyer wrote:
The primary advantage, to my mind, in using Celsif, is that it
eliminates the dangling-else ambiguity -- so splitting it in half
removes almost ALL the value of even having an Celsif keyword.
Surely it's the compulsory braces, even with a single statement,
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
$a = sub ($a, $b) { ... }
$x = - ($y, $z) { ... }
The pointy-arrow doesn't buy anything here.
IMHO, it's actually a loss. I have yet to come up with any mnemonic
for pointy arrow means sub that will actually stick in my brain.
The question is, can I create a method on a class with a different scope than
the class itself has? Put another way, it seems like
module ArrayMath;
sub sum(Array $this){
$this.reduce(operator::+, 0);
}
method Array::sum(;){
.reduce(operator::+, 0);
}
(modulo syntax errors) then both
--- Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
I'm done with 'P'. That's it. Putative planners of programming
paradigms must proffer some prefix preferable to the pathetic
palimpsest that is 'P'!
As with operators, so with programming languages -- Unicode comes not a
moment too soon.
/s
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
And then we can replace the ~ with -:
for 1,2,3,4
- sub ($a, $b) { $a+$b }
- sub ($a) { $a**2 }
- { $^foo - 1 }
- print;
And this begs the question: what exactly does
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:52 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
But in a for loop:
for 1,2,3,4 { ... }
for 1,2,3,4 - ($a,$b) {...}
its cuteness works because the brain sees it as a piping operator (even
though its not).
That's an excellent observation. I like the 'for' syntax quite a bit,
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:03:13 -0600
From: Adam D. Lopresto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
The question is, can I create a method on a class with a different scope
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:38:23 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:52 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
But in a for loop:
for 1,2,3,4 { ... }
for 1,2,3,4 - ($a,$b) {...}
its cuteness works because the brain sees it as a piping operator (even
Michael Lazzaro writes:
And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm, in
either direction:
$in - lex - parse - codify - optimize - $out; # L2R
$out - optimize - codify - parse - lex - $in; # R2L
It's clear, from looking at either of those,
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[[... Massive elision ...]]
I'm thinking it would be a very good idea to unify Cfor and Cmap
in their argument style. I still think the distinction between
Cfor's void and Cmap's list context is a good one; i.e. don't
make them Ientire synonyms.
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
$a = sub ($a, $b) { ... }
$x = - ($y, $z) { ... }
The pointy-arrow doesn't buy anything here.
IMHO, it's actually a loss. I have yet to come up with any mnemonic
for pointy arrow means
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
*Now*, what to do about the fantastic magic that pointy-sub provides?
The _spectacular_ win would be if we could just recognize an optional
parameter list as part of a block.
map @a : ($a,$b) {...} # params + closure = closure with params?
for @a : ($a,$b)
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030119
Summary time again, damn but those tuits are hard to round up. Guess,
what? perl6-internals comes first. 141 messages this week versus the
language list's 143.
Objects (again)
Objects were still very much on everyone's mind as the
17 matches
Mail list logo
