Juerd wrote:
Austin Hastings skribis 2005-03-21 15:55 (-0500):
I'd like to see nothing as just an alias for {}.
if $expr
{
do nothing;
}
Possibly the most clear piece of P6 code ever.
Dangerous, though :)
do nothing if $input =~ /\W/;
system "rm -- $input";
But yes, an alias would
Austin Hastings skribis 2005-03-21 15:55 (-0500):
> I'd like to see nothing as just an alias for {}.
> if $expr
> {
>do nothing;
> }
> Possibly the most clear piece of P6 code ever.
Dangerous, though :)
do nothing if $input =~ /\W/;
system "rm -- $input";
But yes, an alias would
Juerd wrote:
Rod Adams skribis 2005-03-21 14:25 (-0600):
if $expr {
nothing;
}
is harder to get confused over, IMO
Except writing something when you mean nothing is kind of weird. It
makes sense in rules because it doesn't usually make sense to match
nothingness, but for blocks, I'd ha
Rod Adams skribis 2005-03-21 14:25 (-0600):
> if $expr {
> nothing;
> }
> is harder to get confused over, IMO
Except writing something when you mean nothing is kind of weird. It
makes sense in rules because it doesn't usually make sense to match
nothingness, but for blocks, I'd hate to see
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:08:08PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I propose creating a no-op function "nothing" that can be used
: here or anywhere else you specifically wish to do nothing at all.
:
: given $this {
:when Even { nothing };
:when Prime { ... };
:default
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 09:08:08PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: Does Perl need a no-op function?
:
: With the addition of "no bare literals", it makes constructs like
:
: 1 while some_func();
:
: an error.
Well, it's not a bareword--it's just potentially a useless use of
the value in a void contex
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:33:04PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I'm thinking C and C should be strictly Code Point level
: activities, but I'm not sure.
Alternately, since Num implies arbitrary precision, we *could* define
a value that can hold as many code points as you like, mod 2**32 or some
such
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 05:27:56PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I believe Perl 6 hasn't changed its policy on labels, so you should be
: able to write that in Perl 6. But your behavior might be undefined.
: It's weird to jump into the middle of a loop. We may only allow you to
: jump outwards from
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:31:53PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> [...] (The symmetry is slightly broken, though, because if you push
> "foo" once, you have to pop three times to get it back. I don't think
> this is a problem.))
That's not a new break to the symmetry of push and pop:
@b = (1,2,3);
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:54:54PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: Okay,
I've come around to liking it, but I think we have to say that 0x,
0d, 0o, 0b, and whatever else we come up with are just setting the
default radix. If a string comes in with an explicit 0x, 0d, 0o,
or 0b, we believe that in preferen
Paul Seamons skribis 2005-03-18 9:46 (-0700):
> eval slurp "foo";
That requires foo to have an #line directive (or whatever its Perl 6
equivalent will be) in order to be useful when debugging.
See also http://tnx.nl/include (I want Perl 6 to have this function that
evals a file such that in
John Macdonald skribis 2005-03-18 12:00 (-0500):
> I've had times when I wanted to be able to use chop at either
> end of a string.
In fact, won't things be much easier if shift and pop workend on strings
as well as on arrays? Now that we have multis, this should be easy to
do.
(For symmetry, thi
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:45:57 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> I think we'll need to figure out how to shorten $_.foo instead.
It looks short enough to me already. More importantly, its meaning
is immediately obvious.
> Either that, or there has to be a way to explicitly make $_ the
> invocant of a subb
Nicholas Clark writes:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:54:15PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > in the same form if it does come back. So consider 6.0 its usage
> > deprecation cycle, so we can redefine its meaning (if we decide to).
>
> I don't see why study needs a deprecation cycle when length do
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:54:15PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> in the same form if it does come back. So consider 6.0 its usage
> deprecation cycle, so we can redefine its meaning (if we decide to).
I don't see why study needs a deprecation cycle when length doesn't get one.
It seems fair game t
15 matches
Mail list logo
