On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
rename -v = 1, $orig, $new;
[snip]
I think just using named arguments would be better and much easier.
sub rename ($old, $new, +$verbose) {
say Renaming '$old' to '$new' if $verbose;
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
It's
This is yet another proposal that is probably a few years late. I've had
some (admittedly limited) experience with S-Lang in the past: the language
has currently a syntax that resembles much that of C but was originally
designed to be strongly stack-based and still is behind the scenes, a
I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
to specify a (finite number of) argument(s) on the left of functions, thus
allowing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michele Dondi wrote:
| I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
| since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
| function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
| to
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:06:14PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
However I wonder if an implicit stack could be provided for return()s into
void context. It is well known that currently split() in void context has
the bad habit of splitting into @_, which is the reason why doing that is
Every now and then I have this discussion with people at work that involve Perl's
ideas of boolean truth. I usually break it down like this:
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
Anything not in that list is considered TRUE in a boolean context. That means that
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
What you fail to note is that each of these is false for a reason.
undef is false so that you can test an object for truth; if it
is undef it obviously contains no data, so it's false. 0 is false
so that you can test numbers for
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:34:44PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
: since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
: function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
: to specify a
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 08:04, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
... The really special case is '0', which
is false for arcane (but very sensible) reasons.
I don't agree that '0' being false is sensible. This, plus less than
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:59:03AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
: Hash: SHA1
:
: Michele Dondi wrote:
:
: | I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
: | since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
: |
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 10:44, Scott Bronson wrote:
I don't agree that '0' being false is sensible...
I don't mean to imply that I think it's senseless. Just that, to me, it
smells suspiciously like a hack. :)
- Scott
Scott Bronson skribis 2004-06-24 10:44 (-0700):
However, it seems that because Perl is finally getting a typing system,
this hack can be fixed in Perl itself! No programmer intervention
needed. Undef and '' can be false for strings, undef and 0 can be false
for integers, undef, 0, and 0.0
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:50:03AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: That one doesn't work. Named arguments have to come at the end of the
: parameter list (just before the data list, if there is one). This is
: a decision I'm gradually beginning to disagree with, because of:
:
: sub repeat
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Scott Bronson skribis 2004-06-24 10:44 (-0700):
: However, it seems that because Perl is finally getting a typing system,
: this hack can be fixed in Perl itself! No programmer intervention
: needed. Undef and '' can be false for
Scott Bronson writes:
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 08:04, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
In Perl5, the following values are FALSE: undef, '0', 0, and ''.
... The really special case is '0', which is false for arcane (but
very sensible) reasons.
I don't agree that '0' being false is
Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 11:29 (-0700):
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
call the .boolean method, at least in the abstract. (The optimizer is
free to optimize the method call
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:44:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 11:29 (-0700):
: This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
: Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
: call the .boolean method, at least in the
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:34, Smylers wrote:
Scott Bronson writes:
But you're fine with 0 being false? 0 and '0' are pretty much
interchangeable in Perl 5 -- wherever you can use one, you can use the
other and it gets coerced to it.
Let's back up... Strings and numbers are meant to be
Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 12:24 (-0700):
Well, the type/property name doesn't have to be boolean--it could
be truth, instead.
I understand that 'true' and 'false' can't be used.
However, truth is in the same category as definedness, and
$foo.definedness looks awful :)
Perhaps for
Larry Wall wrote:
What do you mean by length?
For a string, it obviously either means number of bytes or number
of characters. Pick one, document it, and let people who want the
other semantic use a pragma.
I don't think it matters which one you pick as default, as long
as it's clearly
Michele Dondi writes:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
rename -v = 1, $orig, $new;
[snip]
I think just using named arguments would be better and much easier.
sub rename ($old, $new, +$verbose) {
say Renaming '$old' to '$new' if $verbose;
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Brent 'Dax'
Michele Dondi writes:
This is yet another proposal that is probably a few years late. I've had
some (admittedly limited) experience with S-Lang in the past: the language
has currently a syntax that resembles much that of C but was originally
designed to be strongly stack-based and still is
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:19:25PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: What do you mean by length?
:
: For a string, it obviously either means number of bytes or number
: of characters. Pick one, document it, and let people who want the
: other semantic use a
Scott Bronson writes:
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 11:34, Smylers wrote:
But you're fine with 0 being false? 0 and '0' are pretty much
interchangeable in Perl 5 -- wherever you can use one, you can use
the other and it gets coerced to it.
Let's back up... Strings and numbers are meant to
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
call the .boolean method, at least in the abstract.
My reading of A12 leads me
--- Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to
be one.
Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All
conditionals
call the .boolean method, at
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-06-24 14:29 (-0700):
$foo as boolean
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to
be one. Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1.
If I understand the current design correctly, having both .boolean and
casting via as would mean
--- Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-06-24 14:29 (-0700):
$foo as boolean
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to
be one. Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1.
If I understand the current design correctly, having
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-06-24 15:54 (-0700):
I'd say yeah, it is. 0-but-true is pretty nice to have. (Finally the
system calls can return something other than -1.)
That we already have. 0 but true. (perldoc -f fcntl)
It's 1 but false that's really special :)
Juerd
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:24:25PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
: I want an okay. Routines should be able to return okay to indicate
: an ambivalent degree of success. okay would be defined as true | false,
Some messages want to be simultaneously Warnocked and not Warnocked...
Larry
Come the glorious age of Perl6, will hash slices be enhanced to allow
things like the following?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'expected'} = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Specifically, having the slice be something other than the last element.
This likely dictates having {} be able access a list of of hashrefs, not
Rod Adams writes:
Come the glorious age of Perl6, will hash slices be enhanced to allow
things like the following?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'expected'} = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Well, you can always do this:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] = [EMAIL PROTECTED];
But I definitely look forward to the definitions of
-Original Message-
From: Dave Whipp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: definitions of truth
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at
On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 14:17, Smylers wrote:
Because the above would've been insane: saying that Csif ($x) treats
$x as a string would be pretending that Cif always treats its
arguments as numbers, but something such as Cif ($x eq 'frog') doesn't
have any numbers in it.
Doesn't it?
perl -e
I seemed to have opened a can of worms, lol
But did anybody see the one that had something to do with my question
crawling around? (I've obviously missed a couple of messages. They're
probably hanging out down at the router in the cyberspace equivelent of
teenagers ogling girls on the street
Paul Hodges writes:
I seemed to have opened a can of worms, lol
But did anybody see the one that had something to do with my question
crawling around? (I've obviously missed a couple of messages. They're
probably hanging out down at the router in the cyberspace equivelent of
teenagers
Juerd wrote:
That we already have. 0 but true. (perldoc -f fcntl)
It's 1 but false that's really special :)
No, what's really special is the ability to return entirely
different things in string versus numeric context, like the
magic $! does in Perl5.
That, or interesting values of undef :-)
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Hodges writes:
So, in P6:
if 0 { print 0\n; } # I assume this won't print.
if '0' { print '0'\n; } # I assume this won't print.
if ''{ print ''\n;} # I assume this won't print.
if undef { print undef\n; } # I
Scott Bronson wrote:
That's the plan? Happy day! I was not aware of that. Because I didn't
see anything about this in Perl 6 Essentials, I just figured that
Perl5's '0'==undef was being brought forward into Perl6. The horror!
Sorry for the bad assumption. :)
Perhaps not as happy as you
39 matches
Mail list logo
