Larry Wall wrote:
multi sub *scramble (String $s) returns String {...}
[...]
Or you can just call it directly as a function:
scramble(hello)
Can you also call scramble as a class method?
class String is extended {
method scramble { ..etc... }
}
String.scramble(hello)
A
Larry Wall wrote:
Yet another approach is to *replace* dot with something that mutates:
@array!sort
@array?sort
Either of those would work syntactically in that case, since neither !
nor ? is expected as a binary operator.
What about ? is as a ternary operator:
@foo?bar:baz;
AW == Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AW What about ? is as a ternary operator:
AW @foo?bar:baz;
IIRC, that was changed to ?? :: because larry wanted the single ? for
more important uses. also doubling the ? made it more like , || which
are related logical ops.
and ?? as the
Larry --
So, will mutatingness be a context we'll be able to inquire on
in the implementation of a called routine? Or, could we provide
a specialized distinct implementation for mutating that would get
called if .=X() is used? If we are performing some operation on
large data, and we know the end
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:11AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: multi sub *scramble (String $s) returns String {...}
: [...]
: Or you can just call it directly as a function:
: scramble(hello)
:
: Can you also call scramble as a class method?
:
: class String is
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:49:44AM -0800, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
: So, will mutatingness be a context we'll be able to inquire on
: in the implementation of a called routine?
Probably not, but it's vaguely possible you could somehow get a
reference to what is being assigned to, if available, and
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 02:05:55PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:11:54AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: On the final hand, if people fall in love with both self:sort and =sort, we
: could have =sort be a shorthand for self:sort where it's unambiguous.
:
: Wouldn't
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:43:22PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Which is precisely the problem with something like
:
: $a cmp= $b
:
: insofar as $a is being treated as a string at one moment and as a boolean
: at the next.
Well, okay, not a boolean. More like a troolean.
Larry
On 3/11/04 4:04 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 12:43:22PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Which is precisely the problem with something like
:
: $a cmp= $b
:
: insofar as $a is being treated as a string at one moment and as a boolean
: at the next.
Well, okay, not a
On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:04, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, okay, not a boolean. More like a troolean.
Unless it's a falselean.
-- c
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:18:52PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
: On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:04, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Well, okay, not a boolean. More like a troolean.
:
: Unless it's a falselean.
It's more truelean than falselean by a 2/3rds majority. And it's
much more if you include 2, -2, 3,
Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:18:52PM -0800, chromatic wrote:
: On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 13:04, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Well, okay, not a boolean. More like a troolean.
:
: Unless it's a falselean.
It's more truelean than falselean by a 2/3rds majority. And it's
much more if you
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I suspect most people will end up declaring it
int method
self:rotate (int $a is rw) {...}
in any event, and reserve the =rotate for .=rotate, which can never put
the = on the left margin, even if we let ourselves have whitespace
before POD directives.
13 matches
Mail list logo
