On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:57:07 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
how often will you need to interpolate a hash?
A whole hash: quite rarely. A hash item: a LOT. Don't forget that
$foo{BAR} will now become %foo{BAR}
--
Bart.
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:34:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
If not _, then what? (if anything?)
I don't really understand your question. Currently, . is used for
concat and that doesn't inhibit using it in a number, does it? Or
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having things declared outside
the braces be lexical to the braces. *That's* hard to explain to beginners.
But it's handy. And that was, until now, what mattered with Perl.
--
Bart.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 12:33:48 -0500, Will Coleda wrote:
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2002/01/15/apo4.html
David Whipp wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Reading this in Apoc 4 ...
I looked on http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/: no sign of Apoc4. Where
do I find this latest installment?
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:53:46 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Piers Cawley has written a nice article entitled: Perl 6 : Not Just For
Damians.
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html
I just hope that you don't really have to insert that many blank lines
in your code just to make it
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:30:08 +0200, raptor wrote:
I was looking at TPJ one-liners and saw this :
#32A trick for indenting here strings
($definition = 'FINIS') =~ s/^\s+//gm;
The five varieties of camelids are the familliar
camel, his friends the llama and the alpaca, and
the
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:42:29 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
Brent asked:
If we have 'and', 'or' and 'xor', can we have 'dor' (defined or) to be a
low-precedence version of this?
I actually suggested exactly that to Larry a few weeks back.
He likes the idea, but is having trouble
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 12:27:17 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
The step you're missing is that the non-numeric string hello,
when evaluated in a numeric context, produces NaN. So:
hello == 0 0 != NaN
is:
Nan == 0 0 != NaN
which is false.
So to what does 123foo evaluate in
On Sat, 06 Oct 2001 22:20:49 -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
So, in the
operator, the filter is the adverb:
$sum =
@costs : {$^_ 1000};
WTF is that operator? All I see is a black block. We're not in ASCII any
more, Toto...
--
Bart.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 11:52:16 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If people want base 10, let them use e syntax.
1e3 = 1000
1k = 1024
I'll leave that for Larry to decide. I'm just thinking of all the 60G hard
drives I see at Best Buy that are really 60e9 bytes, and the 1K ohm
resistors that are really
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:23:33 -0700, Colin Meyer wrote:
Does this mean that
@a ^+= @b;
will add every value of @b to every value of @a?
What I'd expect is more like:
foreach my $elem (@a) {
$elem ^+= @b;
}
If you want that effect, apply scalar on the RHS.
--
On 09 Oct 2001 11:22:02 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Does the change from ?: to ??:: mean that we can have '?' as a valid
character in an identifier?
I'm sure it won't be. The reasoning for replacing ? with ?? is that
? is worth too much as a single character symbol, to sacrifice it on
such a
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:27:48 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so if $key does not exist you'll get 'some default' instead of undef.
Except that a more common case is
my $foo = $hash{foo} || 'some default';
my $bar = $hash{bar} || 'some other
On 01 Sep 2001 14:40:40 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sterin, Ilya [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How is ! different from =?
...
It's the same number of characters. How can it be more convenient?
Why is it = and not =? Why = and not =? Simply trying to
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:03:56 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
I'm going on vacation soon, and I'd like to get a good book on writing
compilers--hopefully one that will help me when we actually start coding
Perl 6. Any suggestions? I have no formal education on compilers, and
I only know C, C++ and Perl
On Tue, 7 Aug 2001 09:27:43 -0400, John Porter wrote:
David L. Nicol wrote:
eval ${code}o;
Another brilliant idea from David Nicol!
Not really.
What I would like is an option to just *compile* a piece of perl code,
without executing it. This kinda works:
$coderef = eval sub {
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:36:43 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
$x = ($default,$a,$b)[$b=$a]; # Much like I did before
Note that
$x = cond? a : b
does lazy evaluation, i.e. the value for a or for b is only fetched when
it's actually needed. In your construct, they're all fetched anyway,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:22:23 +0300, raptor wrote:
But at least the second shortcut is worth it, i think :
cond ? then : else : otherwise
This has a vague smell of Fortran.
--
Bart.
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:08:00 +0300, raptor wrote:
But at least the second shortcut is worth it, i think :
cond ? then : else : otherwise
This has a vague smell of Fortran.
]- I don't know Fortran sorry :)
Then check this out.
http://www.engr.umd.edu/~nsw/ench250/fortran1.htm#IFA
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT), Dave Storrs wrote:
I discovered today that I had forgotten to put 'use strict' at the top of
one of my modules...it was in the script that _used_ the module, but not
in the module itself. Putting it in instantly caught several annoying
bugs that I'd
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:00:25 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Does such a thing exist already?
A WTDI exists already:
for ( $XL-{Application}-{ActiveSheet} ) {
$_-cells(1,1) = Title;
$_-language() = English;
}
(presuming lvalue-methods, of course...)
So, in this case, a with
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:09:07 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Precision is a useful thing with bigfloats so something like 1/3 doesn't
chew up all your available memory.
1/3 would better be represented as a ratio, 1 over 3.
We've been here before, haven't we?
Ratio's, or whatever you'd want to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:55:07 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
Would you like to clarify what you mean here.
Are you talking about typeglob assignments?
Perl 6 will have:
$Foo::{'$bar'} = \$baz; # Alias $Foo::bar to $baz
Are we back to globals only? What about lexical aliases?
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:48:38 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And the current @ISA stuff is MI,
albeit on a per-class basis rather than on a per-object one.
Anyway, as Damian mentioned, setting the .ISA property is a perfectly
reasonable sort of thing to do if the language supports this.
Just one
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:49:21 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
Does anyone else see a problem with $negated=~$scalar; ? :)
You forgot the space between the = and the ~. And yes, that is a bit
of a problem.
--
Bart.
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:54:13 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
I would say Simon was the one ignoring an issue and attacking a person, not
Vijay.
You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
messages: two of
On Wed, 16 May 2001 13:49:42 +0200, Carl Johan Berglund wrote:
sub show {print 6}
print Perl ${show()}\n;
(That prints 6Perl, not Perl 6.)
If you want to call the subroutine in the middle of the string, you
should make it _return_ something, not print it.
This person obviously expects a pipe
On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:15:09 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
What you could do, is treat an iterator as something similar to reading
a line from a file. Tied filehandles allow something like it in Perl5.
You know, if what you say is true, I'd expect to find a module on CPAN which
turns the exotic
On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:38:31 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
You forgot
$bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference
$bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference
As to what the combined
$bar[$foo]
would mean: that depends on what $bar contains.
(Aw! That hurt!)
--
Bart.
On Fri, 11 May 2001 08:29:07 -0500, Tad McClellan wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:26:56PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
Flex - Put all of flex right into Perl.
Don't we already have that in Perl 5?
Sortof.
What he is proposing, is again the age old proposal of putting the
notion of
On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
: love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: explicit readline to a variable other than $_
It would be $FOO.next, but yes, that's the basic idea. It's possible
that iterator variables should be more
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:21:10 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
What if, instead of cramming everything into scalar to the point
where it loses its value as a data type that magically converts
between numeric and string, as needed, we undo the Great Perl5
Dilution and undecorate references.
I really need to spell-check better.
Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
Undecorated is for function calls and methods. And built-ins, of course.
--
Bart.
On Wed, 9 May 2001 09:47:56 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
but their own type. Thus they
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring that,
On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:06:45 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
At that
point, Hungarian notation fell apart for me. Its strict use adds (IMO) as
much confusion as MicroSoft's redefinition of C, with thousands of
typedefs representing basic types (LPSTR and HWND come to mind as the
most common).
On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:14:47 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
I am going to miss doublequoting being the default quoting for
here strings. I find that to be a very nice optimization and
would like to know more about the reasoning behind taking it
away.
I was already panicking when I saw this
On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:49:48 -0500 , Garrett Goebel wrote:
And btw . . . Wouldn't
$thing has property
make more sense than
$thing is property
$foo has true doesn't flow as well as $foo is true. Dunno quite
what the other expected uses are.
Maybe it is just
On Wed, 2 May 2001 17:05:31 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
wantarray-ness is already passed along the call stack today. Thats
the whole point of it. So what is the difference in passing a number
instead of a boolean ?
Because you might have a wantarray situation that expects no values?
() =
On Wed, 2 May 2001 11:41:32 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
but I suspect in this case want('LIST') would
return that magical 0 but true or something similar.
Hopefully the something similar, I hope in Perl 6 we will able to
bury the 0 but true workaround to the backyard on a moonless night
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
--
Bart.
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:19:40 GMT, Fred Heutte wrote:
Yes, I know ~ is the bitwise negation operator. Have you EVER used it?
Yes. A lot.
But there is no conflict. ~ is currently just an unary operator, while
your use would be as a binary operator (are those the correct terms?).
For example, in
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
Bart Lateur writes:
: Er... hip hip hurray?!?!
:
: This is precisely the reason why I came up with the raw idea of
: highlander variables in the first place: because it's annoying not being
: able to access a hash passed to a sub
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
Edward Peschko writes:
: I guess my question is what would be the syntax to access hashes? Would
:
: $hashref.{ }
:
: be that desirable? I really like -{ } in that case..
It won't be either of those. It'll simply be $hashref{ }.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
: Ok, so what does:
:
: my %hash = ( 1 = 3);
: my $hash = { 1 = 4};
:
: print $hash{1};
:
: print?
4. You must say %hash{1} if you want the other.
Ok. So how about hash slices? Is $hash{$a, $b}, the faked
multidimensional hash,
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 08:25:40 -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
| I'm really beginning to like
|
| $string3 = $string1 _ $string2;
|
| The underscore indeed connects the two strings.
This still breaks because _ is a valid word character.
So are cmp, and, lt, and the proposed cat and cc.
On 24 Apr 2001 00:29:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
How do you concatenate together a list of variables that's longer than one
line without using super-long lines? Going to the shell syntax of:
PATH=/some/long:/bunch/of:/stuff
PATH=${PATH}:/more/stuff
would really be a shame.
A
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:49:18 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
While that's true, concatenation is quite a common operation
that I'd be really
uncomfortable with it necessitating 4 keystrokes ( cat) instead of one.
Er, ~ is an extremely annoying character to type at many keyboards. It
may depend on
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:37:02 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
Let's put it a different way - if we can find a short operator which
is readily accessible on most people's keyboards, then that would
score over a longer operator which is readily accessible on most
people's keyboards. Maybe ~ isn't that
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 00:37:53 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
$string3 = $string1 . $string2;
$string3 = $string1 + $string2;
That's now *five* characters required to perform a very common operation.
Rather than one.
I'm really beginning to like
$string3 = $string1 _ $string2;
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:14:50 -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Using + for concat: no!
My vote is to use . and require space before and after.
$this.$is.$ugly.$anyway ;)
My vote is to ditch the concat operator altogether. Hey, we have
interpolation!
$this$is$just$as$ugly$but$it$works
Which
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:19:24 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Or we change the concatenation operator.
I am thinking that maybe it should be a 2 character operator with at
least one of then being + as + is common in many other languages
for doing concatenation.
Or, in analogy to cmp, gt etc:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:11:20 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
"Can perl automatically optimize away function and tie calls inside
a sort function, and under what circumstances?"
It doesn't really matter if the functions inside the sort function are
idempotent--what matters is whether it's OK
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:40:20 -0500, John Porter wrote:
Uri Guttman wrote:
JP y/L/A/;
tell that to perllol :)
I do, through clenched teeth, every time I see it.
IMHO, it is:
HoA
HoH
LoA
LoH
--
Bart.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:01:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
default? Or even know of one?
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
languages.
Examples? I know you're
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
On 17 Feb 2001 20:53:51 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Could
people please take the advocacy traffic elsewhere where it isn't noise?
Advocacy is noise everywhere.
That doesn't mean that davocates for either side don't have anything
interesting to say. For starters, it's usually dissatisfaction
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:35:16 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
In the perl 5 pocket reference 3rd edition page 63, it claims that $@ is
set to the result of an eval or do. How does this impact exception
handling tests on $@ to determine if an exception was thrown, if $@ can
be set by a do ? OR is
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:14:34 -0800, Mark Koopman wrote:
but is this an example of the way people SHOULD code, or simply are ABLE to
code this. are we considering to deprecate this type of bad style, and force
to a programmer to, in this case, supply a ref to %baz in the arguements to
this sub?
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:39:01 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
(Including Archive::Tar as part of the base perl distribution's not
inappropriate, assuming we can get permission. )
Since it's already part of the "standard distribution"
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:49:45 -0200, Branden wrote:
I've never actually used PPM, only read about it in
the web. I guess their file format is a disguised .tar.gz, right?
It's a combination of an XML file, file extension "PPD", which describes
the properties and dependencies, and platforms, and a
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:06:12 -0500, Ken Fox wrote:
There are two main reasons advanced garbage collectors are fast:
1. Cheap allocations. Most fast collectors have a one or two
instruction malloc. In C it looks like this:
void *malloc(size) { void *obj = heap; heap += size; return
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:36:36 +1100 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
RFC 271 handles this. Your example would be:
sub readit {
open F, " $f" ...
scalar(F)
}
post readit {
close F;
}
The connection between these two things is not
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:35:59 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
use autoload { Bar = 'http://www.cpan.org/modules/Bar' },
{ Baz = 'ftp://my.local.domain/perl-modules/Baz', VERSION =
2 };
Very good idea indeed!!! Append the wishlist to add this module to perl6's
standard library!!!
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:13:39 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Is there any really good reason why sleep() doesn't work for
microseconds? I mean, if I can do this:
sub sleep {
my($time) = shift;
if( /^[+-]?\d+$/ ) {
sleep($time);
}
else {
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:39:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why the urge to move it out of the core? Should perl6 be like Python,
where you first need to do a gazillion imports before you can do anything
useful? Say goodbye to quick one-liners then.
It doesn't have to be like that. Functions
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:53:13 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
So nice of you to volunteer for being our help desk person man for
explaining to people why their time() just got broken :-)
I'd use the same function name for both the integer version of time(),
and the hires version. All you need is
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:47:47 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
well, according to this
perl5.6.0 -le '%h = qw( a b c d ); $_ .= 1 for %h ; print values %h ; chop %h ; print
values %h'
b1d1
bd
it doesn't appear to be a chop specific thing. unraveling a hash always
seems to use aliases for the values.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:16:52 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
o The architecture-interrogation primitives are inadequate; there is no
robust way to ask ``am I running on Windows'' or ``am I running on
Unix.''
**We have $^O, but it requires parsing every time**
Uhm, I'm
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:42:43 -0700, root wrote:
I read RFC195 suggesting to drop 'chop' and go with 'chomp'.
What does 'chop' have anything to do with 'chomp'?
I'm totally oppose to that. Consider:
my $s;
map { /\S/ $s .= "$_ " } split(/\s+/,@_);
chop($s);
return $s;
Excuse me, but you're
On 19 Oct 2000 22:01:23 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the code name "omega" would be a fitting handle...after all, this will be
the last perl of all...i am obviously assuming perl 6 will not be still born.
Hey, why not something in the line of "2PI" ("P2PI"?). After all, 2 * PI
is what the
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 11:28:37 PDT, Carl Wuebker wrote:
I'd like to put in a pitch for RFC 124 in Perl 6. Balanced binary
trees (such as AVL or red-black trees) allow O(log2 n) insertion, searching,
outputting ranges of keys deletion. I wouldn't want to touch existing Perl
hashes, but it
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:45:56 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
"Now" is regularly used in English to separate the present from the general,
for instance the temporary situation
"The Chiefs have scored a touchdown, now they will try for the extra point"
could be expressed in
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:08:00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
May I point out that COBOL was designed by a committee.
That ain't bad enough.
Let me point out that we don't need another Ada or PL/1.
--
Bart.
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 03:15:22 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
written in pod.
You, masochist.
(duck, and run)
--
Bart.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 08:29:09 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
But, why not suggest SDF instead of XML? SDF addresses most of POD's
deficiencies whill still retaining readability. (I don't have a URL
for SDF handy, but I'm sure a quick search on google.com would turn it
up)
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 10:51:28 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
XML never had human writable simplicity and never will.
XML is intrinsically no more or less difficult to write than HTML.
The problem with XML is that it is so unforgiving; I think somebody
already mentioned that. Improperly nested tags,
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:54:47 -0400, Tad McClellan wrote:
Improperly nested tags, or one character it
doesn't recognize... and the parser says "nyet".
I read that as "the machine will tell me when I messed up".
I'd rather have a machine tell me than have to figure it
out myself. I think I
=head1 TITLE
Regex: Make /$/ equivalent to /\z/ under the '/s' modifier
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1 Oct 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 332
Version: 2
Status: Developing (redraft)
=head1 ABSTRACT
To most Perlers, /$/ in a regex
=head1 TITLE
Regex assertions in plain Perl code
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 28 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 348
Version: 2
Status: Developing (candidate for freeze)
=head1 ABSTRACT
Likely the most justifiable reason to want
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 18:43:27 +0100, Hugo wrote:
:This makes the implementation very tricky. I
:wouldn't be surprised if precisely this feature is the main reason why
:the current implementation is so notoriously unstable.
I'm not aware of any instability caused by this. The instability is
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 15:30:46 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
it's not a new feature. It's amazing the subtle control you
can get with s/(\$...)/$1/ge depending on your
Wrapping such a critter up in a tied scalar sounds like a total
piece of cake
What will you do with:
${foo}bar
On 29 Sep 2000 17:11:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Just out of curiosity, and I'm not objecting to this RFC, has anyone
reading this mailing list actually intentionally used a vertical tab for
something related to its supposed purpose in the past ten years?
I agree. RFC's like this one seem
On 1 Oct 2000 06:48:11 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
-r freadable()
-R Freadable()
This still doesn't sound like an improvement. I can remember that -r
stands for readable, but the difference between -r and -R is very
obscure. How to remember which is which? The "English"
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 00:57:47 +0100, Hugo wrote:
:"local" inside embedded code will no longer be supported, nor will
:consitional regexes. The Perl5 - Perl6 translator should warn if it
:ever encounters one of these.
I'm not convinced that removing either of these are necessary to the
main
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:55:32 +1100 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
Wouldn't this interact rather badly with the /gc option (which also leaves
Cpos set on failure)?
Yes.
The easy way out is disallow combining /gc wit h/z. But, since this
typically one of the applications it is aimed for, I should
On 30 Sep 2000 19:50:27 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
In Perl6, lookbehind in regular expressions should be extended to permit
not only fixed-length, but also variable-length lookbehind.
I see no mention of negative lookbehind.
As I wrote before, in:
/(?!ab*c)x/
The lookbehind
On 28 Sep 2000 20:57:39 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Currently, C\1 and $1 have only slightly different meanings within a
regex. Let's consolidate them together, eliminate the differences, and
settle on $1 as the standard.
I wrote this before, but apparently you didn't hear it. Let me
On 25 Sep 2000 06:01:57 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Perl6 should be *easier* to write CGI programs than Perl5.
To make CGI programming easier, this option/pragma should:
...
Parse the CGI context, returning CGI variables into %CGI
I like that one.
Not take up gobs of memory
That too.
On 25 Sep 2000 06:01:57 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
All of the other features offered by Lincoln Stein's CGI.pm should remain,
but should not be deeply integrated into Perl6.
No cookie support, please. Cookies should remain in a module.
--
Bart.
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:13:30 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
-{rwx}; # negation of a hashref
That's a weird hashref. Odd number of arguments, anyone?
If rwx is supposed to be a sub, we could say that this is an exception,
just like $hash{bareword} is an exception. So, if you want the sub,
On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:18:34 +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
my is fine, but local
should be changed to something like "temporary" (yes, that
is supposed to be annoying to type) or "dynamic".
I like "temporary" best, because it says exactly what the purpose is:
temporary $x = $x+2;
On 30 Sep 2000 20:13:55 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
But setting $[ = 1 is the mathematically correct method for
array addressing and makes it easier for ordinary mortals to do
basic tasks with Csubstr(), array addressing and the like.
I sure don't want the fact that a scripter decides to
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 16:39:04 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
I repeat:
All of the other features offered by Lincoln Stein's CGI.pm should remain,
but should not be deeply integrated into Perl6.
^^^
:-)
The proposed 'use cgi;' pragma is concerned with gluing Perl into a cgi
context.
I should have said: file-scoped lexical.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 21:56:43 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
If it's lexically scoped, would it be for arrays declared in that scope, or
for arrays accessed in that scope?
I'm not sure. I think I see potential breakage both ways.
You don't declare Perl
On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Perl6 make it *easier* to write CGI programs than Perl5.
That is a strange sentence.
But anyway: whould this imply that URL- and simple HTML escaping and
back, will now be available through pack()/unpack()? Just like UUE?
;-)
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:19:47 +0100, Hugo wrote:
I think that involves
rewriting your /p example something like:
if (/^$pat$/z) {
print "found a complete match";
} elsif (defined pos) {
print "found a prefix match";
} else {
print "not a match";
}
Except that this isn't
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:34:48 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
If $1 could be made to work properly on the LHS of s///, I'd vote for
that being The Way.
I disagree, because \1 is different from a variable $foo in at least two
ways:
* $foo is compiled into /$foo/ before anything is matched. \1
On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
Can you say "method"?
--
Bart.
1 - 100 of 247 matches
Mail list logo
