Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
I sent the appropriate patch to the webmaster, but it hasn't
been applied yet (and I lack a commit bit for the parrotcode.org site).
Once that's applied, the url should be fixed.
Thanks, applied. I also updated parrot.org.
Allison
On behalf of the Parrot team, I'm proud to announce Parrot 0.4.13
Clifton. Parrot (http://parrotcode.org/) is a virtual machine aimed
at running all dynamic languages.
Parrot 0.4.13 can be obtained via CPAN (soon), or follow the
download instructions at http://parrotcode.org/source.html.
Parrot
I just signed an agreement with O'Reilly that assigns the full copyright
in the book Perl 6 and Parrot Essentials to The Perl Foundation. The
text is out-of-date, but can be updated much more rapidly than it can be
rewritten from scratch.
I'll check the Parrot parts into:
We're splitting off the Parrot project manager role from the Perl 6
project manager role, to make better use of the time and energy of
available volunteers. Will Coke Coleda has graciously agreed to take
on the PM responsibilities for Parrot, and Jesse Vincent will continue
as PM for Perl 6.
Quick question, is there a syntax specified in Perl 6 for referring to
namespaces from other languages?
I'm reviewing the namespaces PDD and want to update this snippet:
--
IMPLEMENTATION EXAMPLES: Suppose a Perl program were to import some Tcl
module with an import pattern of ``c*'' --
Damian Conway wrote:
skip:
- We keep :words as shorthand for :skip(/ws/)
- And :skip is shorthand for :skip(/skip/)
...where skip defaults to ws, but is distinct from it (i.e. it can
be redefined independently).
It also has the benefit that developers redefining skip can call ws
as one
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 08:57:53PM +0800, Audrey Tang wrote:
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
- sp is a single character of obligatory whitespace
Hmm, it's literal ' ' (that is, \x20), not whitespace in general,
right? For obligatory whitespace we have \s.
Oops, you're
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 05:58:57PM -0700, Allison Randal wrote:
rule:
- Has :ratchet and :skip turned on by default
- May only be used inside a grammar
Should that be
- Must be declared as part of a grammar or role
???
It is:
- The 'rule' keyword may only
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Whitespace in regexes and rules is metasyntactic, in that it is
not matched literally. Effectively what the :w (or :words or
:skip) option does it to change the metasyntactic meaning of
any whitespace found in the regex. Or, another way of thinking
of it -- as
Oh, and since we're calling them regexes, I suggest calling them
regular expressions too, since both regex(p) and regular
expression have taken on the popular meaning of pattern matching. If
we're going to be anti-pedantic, let's be consistently anti-pedantic. :)
Allison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
Changed :words/:w to :sigspace/:s and invented ss/// and ms// (or maybe mm//).
I keep expecting 'sigspace' to have something to do signatures.
Larry++ on :s. :)
Allison
Smylers wrote:
Allison Randal writes:
I keep expecting 'sigspace' to have something to do signatures.
So do I. How about :litspace for 'literal space'? Except they aren't
exactly literal, because they only indicate where _some_ space has to
be, not that it has to be exactly that sort
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison wrote:
I've never met anyone who *voluntarily* added
the 'p'. ;-)
You've spent too much time in the U.S. ;)
and the fact that everyone knows 'regex(p)'
means regular expression no matter how may times we say it doesn't.
Sure. But
To summarize a phone call today, the more intelligent defaults we add to
differently named rule keywords the more comfortable I am with having
different names. So, here's what we have so far (posted both as an FYI
and to confirm that we have the coherent solution I think we have):
rule:
- Has
On Apr 20, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
KeywordImplicit adverbsBehaviour
regex (none) Ignores whitespace, backtracks
token :ratchetIgnores whitespace, no backtracking
rule :ratchet :words Skips whitespace, no
On Feb 7, 2006, at 13:28, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Apologies if this is insulting to anyone, but personally I think
that Perl 6 (pugs, parrot, everything) is losing too much momentum
lately. I think we need to seriously rethink some of the
implementation plan.
I understand your frustration. I even
On Feb 7, 2006, at 15:31, Stevan Little wrote:
Now I am not as involved in Parrot as I am in Pugs so I might be way
off base here, but from my point of view Parrot still has a long way
to go before it runs Perl 6 code. Part of that is because the bridge
between PIR/PMCs and Perl 6 just does not
On Feb 7, 2006, at 19:21, Stevan Little wrote:
Perl 6 will get implemented.
Oh, of that I have no doubt. Never did, and neither does Yuval (if I
may speak for him while he is asleep :). But all that we are trying to
do here is shake out some cobwebs, a little spring cleaning if you
will.
It's that time of year again, and we're looking for reviewers for the
2nd edition of Perl 6 Essentials. The review will start mid-March and
last about a week. Drop me a message if you're interested. We may have
to narrow down the list of volunteers a bit. 15 sets of comments is
about the maximum
Simon wrote:
How should we go about bringing A3 up to match current reality? It is, after
all, over two years old now.
We talked about this today. Our current thought is to retroactively
write the Synopses and keep those up-to-date (with notes in the outdated
parts of the A's and E's pointing
Smylers wrote:
I had been assuming that Perl 6 would continue the tradition that
anonymous subroutines don't have names.
'Synopsis 6' contains this line:
On an anonymous subroutine, any return type can only go after the
name:
Which name would that be?
The example given:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Well, here's a start. Here are the ones I've found in the Exegeses and
Apocalypses. Things like 'is copy' and 'is given' (and probably a
great many others) have only been mentioned on the list, and I'm not
grepping through all the list mail. :)
Cis given is gone now
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:02:42AM +0100, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 02:58:04PM -0600, Allison Randal wrote:
[0] STL = St. Louis - June 2002, ETH = ETH campus in Munich - Sept.
ETH is in Zurich. The Mini::Conference there was immediately followed
by YAPC::Europe
Simon wrote:
Oh well, it was only two letters. There wasn't anything about
approximate matching in A5, was there?
This was a [MZ]u[nr]ich joke, I think.
* Allison trundles off to caffeinate her brain.
Luke wrote:
If you want to modify a parameter in place, you declare with Cis rw.
If you want to pass by-value, there might be a property for that, but
I think this was recommended:
sub foo($bar_) {
my $bar = $bar_; # Copy, not bind
# ... with $bar
}
In the
Nicholas Clark wrote:
There's nothing wrong with stealing, er borrowing the good bits of
reptiles though, is there?. I didn't think that perl was fussy about where
it gets its inspiration from.
It isn't and never will be. We're openly friendly to all languages. But
Perl is also quite
Damian wrote:
This is just to let everybody know that I will be unsubscribing from
p6-lang for the foreseeable future, effective immediately.
I deeply regret that I simply no longer have the time to cope with the
volume of messages being generated here. Unfortunately, the exigencies of
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries
of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea
feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea.
Different opinions will be presented. The
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
NOTE TO ALLISON RANDAL: in your face-to-face meetings next week, please
make sure that Larry Wall isn't really Guido van Rossum with a fake
mustache.
Righto. No reptiles, only jewels and birds. And possibly the occasional
snark. ;)
Allison
To summarize, we're discussing 3 features:
a) the ability to set the topic with a block (sub, method, etc)
b) the ability to set a default value for a parameter
c) the ability to break lexical scope
1) for $_ only
2) for any variable
Each of these features already have syntax that allows
Larry wrote:
I'm trying to remember why it was that we didn't always make the first
argument of any sub the topic by default. I think it had to do with
the assumption that a bare block should not work with a copy of $_ from
the outside.
I dug through the archives. We were considering
Austin wrote:
For methods, will that be the invocant or the first other parameter?
$string.toLanguage(french)
Topic is $string, or french ?
It is the invocant.
Allison
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:24:30PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
So what's wrong with:
sub foo($param is topic //= $= // 5)# Shorter form with $=
sub foo($param is topic //= $CALLER::_ // 5)
It doesn't really seem like we can make it much shorter. Yes, we could
convert //= into a
Austin wrote:
The idea of $= as CALLER::_ is good, though.
Though C//= $= // is a nasty sequence.
Final // only required for another default:
//= $= // 5 # Default to $CALLER::_, or 5
Aye, it's just a worst case scenario. C//= $= and C= $= are still
line-noisy. It's a trade-off
Me wrote:
c) the ability to break lexical scope
Well, I could argue that c) already exists
in the form of passing parameters in parens.
Of course, that doesn't feel like breaking
anything.
Formal parameters are lexically scoped.
Lexical scope: references to the established entity can
[responding to several of the most recent posts]
Let's table discussion of the details for a few days until we get the
perl6-documentation list set up. Then we can dig into planning out the
scope and goals of the project, and what roles various people might
take.
Allison
Ask was fast:
Subscribe by sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NNTP access and archives at nntp.perl.org will be available a few
hours after the first posting to the list.
Let the games begin...
Allison
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 06:58:52PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
Big, Big HOLE in the middle. _Who_ is fleshing out the mindless,
trivial details that Larry posts to this list, and _who_ is
creating/updating the documentation to reflect those
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 10:54:23AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
-- The latest news on the Perl6 section of dev.perl.org was updated
July 7th, introducing Piers, and other than linking to Piers' summaries
contains no information pertinent to Perl6 -- only Parrot.
Sounds like a place you
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Not good. 5 patches means that 4 people wasted effort trying to help.
I don't have a solution to this problem (sorry). But I think it's an
important problem to solve.
Wasted effort is a problem. I don't know that a perfect solution exists.
Parrot's solution of making
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Here is my suggested solution to the problem.
And, though, snipped, a fine solution it is, with two caveats:
There's potential here. If we arrange it so Larry can stay focused and
the total productivity of the project increases, we'll have a good
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:13:45AM -0600, Me wrote:
relatively few subroutines need access
to the upscope topic.
Well, this is a central issue. What are
the real percentages going to be here?
Just how often will one type the likes
of
- is given($foo is topic) { ... }
rather
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:17:32PM -0600, Me wrote:
I started with a simple thought:
is given($foo)
seems to jar with
given $foo { ... }
One pulls in the topic from outside and
calls it $foo, the other does the reverse --
it pulls in $foo from the outside and makes
it the
On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:03:44AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Thu, 3 Oct 2002, John Williams writes:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
Incidentally, has there been any headway made on how you DO access
multiple classes with the same name, since Larry has
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:00:21PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:46:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
class ATV is Car, interface {
Hmmm. That should probably be
class ATV isa Car is interface {
That's:
class ATV is Car is interface {
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:14:22PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:45:33PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:00:21PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:46:38PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
class ATV is Car
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 03:09:29PM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
This one actually came to me just the other night. Would it be possible
in Perl 6 to create anonymous classes? Something like:
my $foo_class = class {
method new {
# yada yada yada
}
}
my
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 07:30:19PM -0400, Chris Dutton wrote:
The only problem I could see, and I wanted to wait for at least one
other opinion before mentioning this, is rewriting the above as:
my $foo_class $foo_obj = $foo_class.new;
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do with
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 07:32:00PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
* Yes, Perl 6 will have named arguments to subroutines.
What I can remember from the Perl 6 BoF is it will look something like this:
sub foo ($this, $that) {
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 02:52:06PM -0500, Me wrote:
Current p6 rx syntax aiui regarding embedded code:
/
#1 do (may include an explicit fail):
{ code }
#2 do with implicit 'or fail'
( code )
#3 interp lit:
$( { code } )
#4 interp as rx:
{ code
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:59:57PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
The parens in #3, C ( code ) , make sense if you think of
s/3/2/
Allison
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 10:38:39AM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
On 6/6/02 2:43 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
rule wordlist { (\w+) [ , (\w+) ]* }
No semicolon at the end of that line? I've already forgotten the new
rules for that type of thing... :)
No, because rules are basically methods,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 08:21:25PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, because rules are basically methods, just like grammars are
basically classes. You would only need a semi-colon if you were defining
an anonymous Crule (similar to an anonymous Csub
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:40:30PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Back to from where this arose, however, I think LAST (and BETWEEN, if
it will exist) should probably be PRE blocks. This is the only way it
could be consistently possible to implement. It wouldn't make any
sense to have it a PRE
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:15:48PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
LAST Executes on implicit loop exit or call to last()
Loop variables may be unknown
Not exactly unknown. It's just that, in a few cases, their values may
have changed by the time the LAST block is executed.
And I think
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 10:53:11AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison asked:
Hmmm... would CLAST not have the same problem as CBETWEEN? It also
can't decide whether to execute until it knows whether the loop is
going to iterate again.
Yes, it does.
Then I agree with Miko, it's not
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:13:45AM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
BUGS
Unlikely, since it doesn't actually do anything. However,
bug reports and other feedback are most welcome.
Bug:
don't { die } unless .error;
doesn't DWIM (though the current behavour,
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 09:03:42AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Hmm. I wonder why the python community (apparently) have no problems
with elses on loops:
7.2 The while statement
The while statement is used for repeated execution as long as an
expression is
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:22:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
NAME
Acme::Don't - The opposite of `do'
DESCRIPTION
...
Note that the code in the `don't' block must be syntactically valid
Perl. This is an important feature: you get the accelerated performance
of
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:53:39PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
At 11:44 AM 5/1/2002 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
Um... I know it's scary, but I can actually imagine using this (or
something like this) in development. I'll occasionally work on a section
of code I'm not ready to integrate yet
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:47:56PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 12:22, Allison Randal wrote:
You also avoid totally annoying Pythonists who occasionally use (and
might be converted to) Perl. :)
...
Perl is fundamentally different in its approach and just
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:04:10PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
*bites back sarcastic comment about the pace of Perl 6's development*
*fails to squelch reply about the survival rate of prematurely birthed
babies*
Some things just take time.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:08:14PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
Damian said:
The CBETWEEN block can't decide whether to execute until
it knows whether the loop is going to iterate again. And it can't
know *that* until it has evaluated the condition again. At which
point, the $filename
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:10:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:06, Allison Randal wrote:
Absolutely what I thought. elsif would be for thing else if where
elsfor would be thing else for-loop. Since you got this distinction
right off, it sounds like an intuitive
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:30, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
1) Do we have a reality check on why this syntax is needed?
It's because the alternative is:
Perl5:
$did = 0;
for($i=0;$i$max;$i++) {
...
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Ok, once more for those in the cheap seats (no offense, it's just a lot
of people seemed to have ignored the thread until now and jumped in
without the context), this is how we got here:
1. Larry says loops will have ELSE
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:14:01PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Well then, I guess we should dump elsif from if too. After all, it
could all be done with nested blocks of if/else
But Celsif is different. You use it all the time. The frequency with
which you'd need a loop that leads into
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:25:26PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 01:55 PM 4/29/02 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
There will have to be a section of the training material devoted to
When is a loop false? (I like that perspective, it nicely unifies the
cases), but it should be a short one.
I
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:53:32PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison wrote:
The answer is the same, in any case: When the condition in the
Cwhile has a false value, when the list/array in the Cfor is empty,
or when the condition (2nd expression) in the Cloop is met on the first
Hmmm... some discussion generated on this subject, but fairly light. I
take that as an indicator that an Celse on loops is a fairly popular
idea. The other possibilities are that b) people don't want any form of
else on loops and aren't saying so or c) people simply don't care,
but silence and
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 10:53:09PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison wrote:
And the discussion of scope led to (what I think is) an interesting
tidbit on NAMED blocks...
Which I presume was that the proposed usage:
while $result.get_next() - $next {
# do something with
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 12:50:49PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
Here's another possibility. People trust Larry to get it right and
don't feel the need to weigh in with opinions.
I trust Larry. That's actually why I feel free to play the devil's
advocate. I trust him to toss the dross and
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:49:23AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Trey Harris wrote:
So:
for $results.get_next() {
FIRST { print Results:BR; }
NEXT { print HR; }
} else {
print No results.;
}
Do I have that right?
Yes. Presuming Larry decides in favour of CFIRST and
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:24:13PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 14:11, Allison Randal wrote:
The else of a loop construct isn't really the same as the else of an
Cif. You can't use an Celsif for one thing.
Why not? What would be wrong with:
for x
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:14:36PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote:
Besides, I would expect an Celsfor to actually be a loop of it's own,
on the principle of elsif = else + if so elsfor = else + for.
So, you're suggesting we add Celsunless then? Just
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 09:29:21AM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
Wouldn't Know a Tagmemic if it Bit Him on the Parse
Ooh, can I steal that as a title? (Though I'll s/Tagmemic/Tagmeme/.) I
like it! :)
Allison
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 05:34:13PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Glenn Linderman writes:
$_ becomes lexical
Sound logic. And it almost did go that way. But subs that access the
current $_ directly are far too common, and far
On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 08:53:41AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Off hand, it seems like defaulting to is dynamic_topic would make
more of those common useful $_-dependent subroutines work without
change, but I guess if the perl 5 to 6 translator can detect use of $_
before definition of $_
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 02:44:38AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
I think I've missed something, even after poring over the archives for
some hours looking for the answer. How does one write defaulting
subroutines a la builtins like print() and chomp()? Assume the code:
for {
printRec;
Okay, first thing to keep in mind, this hasn't been finally-finalized
yet. Alot was hashed out in the process of proofing E4, but there will
be more to come.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 07:39:17PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Glenn Linderman writes:
$_ becomes
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We're talking about how to make .foo mean self.foo regardless of the
current topic.
Are we? I was looking for a way to unambgiously access the current
object in such a way that
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
Direction 2 moves into the more exciting but scarier realm of alternate
defaults.
It could, but how about an alternative?
Ah-ha, yet a third Direction!
Need there be a unary dot to specify
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:03:45PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 07:57:01PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
main::m2; # calls global subroutine main::m2
This is looking more and more horrible Glenn.
I think we need to back off
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 03:49:44PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:42:58PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
I like the following, assumed to be within method m1:
..m2(); # call m2 the same way m1 was called, instance or class
This has already been semi
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 09:23:23PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
foo() = $self-foo()
.foo() = $_-foo()
foo() = foo()
...
For reasons that I can't quite put my finger on at the moment, I
really,
David Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thus, the perl5 transalations would be:
foo() = $self-foo()
.foo() = $_-foo()
foo() = foo()
...
Alternative:
$self.foo() = $self-foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
.foo() = $_-foo() # but might be altered by a
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:04:56AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison wrote:
$self.foo() = $self-foo() # and can be .foo() when $self is $_
.foo() = $_-foo() # but might be altered by a pragma
foo() = foo()
And welcome back to where we started! ;-)
Exactly! :)
The
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 08:04:56AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Reflecting on this, it seems that it would be useful if methods
implicitly did their default topicalization-of-invocant like so:
- $self
rather than just:
- $_
That is, that as well as aliasing the invocant
On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 12:01:58PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Allison Randal wrote:
H... this being the case, is there any reason we should ever need to
name the invocant explicitly?
Yes. To make it read-writable.
Curses! Foiled again! :)
Perl makes that much easier than most
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 09:59:35AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
I should update y'all to my current thinking, which is that $_ is
always identical to the current topic, even if the topic is aliased to
some other variable. To get at an outer topic, you'd have to use the
same mechanism we'll use
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 03:30:00PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Hmm Out of curiosity what kind of user-extensible topicalizer aware
constructs would you make?
I'm envisioning something along the lines of: while parsing a file, you
have a Cfor loop through the file and a series of
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:12:12PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Nobody has the least bit of trouble understanding that WITHIN the for
loop, the default value just changed from whatever it was outside
Well, Cfor is a topicalizer, and always has been, even before we had a
name for it, so this
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 03:28:29PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Garrett Goebel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm... Out of curiosity what kind of user-extensible topicalizer
aware constructs would you make?
Remember Larry's comment that the - operator is a kind of parameter
binding,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 03:17:19PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
I do worry that as Perl grows richer, so does the need for underlying
consistency and simplicity
You're not alone in that
I guess it is all about seeking the correct balance And that is
something Larry and the Perl community
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 08:02:08AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
BTW, Cfor doesn't alias $_ always. That's why things like the example
below are possible.
Yes. Cfor and Cgiven will only alias $_ when they are not aliasing a
named variable.
Hmm. Suppose we force Cwhen to alias $_, but give
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:32:24AM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Why does Cwhen's EXPR pay attention to the topicalizer regardless of
associated variable?
Why introduce the special case? Especially when consistency and
simplification seem to be a strong undercurrent in Perl6? I'm curious
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:11:13AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Cwhen is a conditional like Cif, not a topicalizer.
Right, it's a topicalizee, the victim of topicalization. And so it uses
$_ or $x or $! or whatever the current topic is.
i.e. a defaulting construct or topic sensitive
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:24:48PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
From: Allison Randal
Not just some value external to the switch, but the value in $_.
I now see the DWIM aspect. Thanks BTW.
But how often will people have non- Cwhen statements within a Cgiven
scope that'll need
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 01:26:41PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Possibility B- when-blocks accept a - operator, which if used naked
binds the current localizer to $_.
I think if I had a choice between
given $y - $x {
when /a/ - {...}
when /b/ - {...}
...
}
and
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:20:48PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
Austin Hastings:
#
# Which, then, would you like:
#
# To implicitly localize $_, losing access to an outer version,
# or to have to change between implicit and explicit operations?
Well, I like the idea of having Cwhen and the
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
