On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 07:54:18PM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: Hi all,
: I'm back with more quoting construct madness.
Kewl, d00d.
: First, context of hash slices:
: Hash slices with {} notation are trivially either scalars or lists:
: $h{'foo'} = want(); # Scalar
: $h{'foo','bar'} = want();
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 08:00:00PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : First, context of hash slices:
: : Hash slices with {} notation are trivially either scalars or lists:
: : $h{'foo'} = want(); # Scalar
: : $h{'foo','bar'} = want(); # List
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 03:14:50AM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: I actually knew that, but in my head $key_b and $value_b were single words.
: But according to S02, the interpolation is protected by quotes. That is, if
: $key_b is q0/printf Hello, world\n or die/, that's four words, correct? Or
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 02:42:25AM -0700, Ashley Winters wrote:
: I never liked character sets. They introduced yet another exception to
: the parsing rules, and it irked me. If it weren't for the need to
: optimize character sets, I'd prefer to be Pythonized into using @{'a'
: .. 'z'}
:
: If I
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 06:28:37PM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: Hi all.
:
: I'm trying to get quoting interpolation to work, which means I first have to
: understand it a little better.
:
: In Perl 5, as far as I can see, the delimiter of quoting constructs (whether
: it's , '' or qq delim)
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:30:49AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: The basic rule of thumb is that we pretend we're a top-down parser
: even if we aren't, and we only look for the trailing delimiter when
: we're not trying to parse something embedded that would naturally
: slurp up the trailing
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:16:43PM +0300, Roie Marianer wrote:
: On Saturday 16 April 2005 10:10 pm, Larry Wall wrote:
: So
: this is a syntax error (of the runaway variety, presumably):
:
: @foo::bar::baz::fee::fie::foe[
: I was with you until that. What about
: @foo::bar::baz::fee
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 10:01:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-16 11:08 (-0700):
: : $foo ~~ /@{ [ ] { } : ++ $ . ? / +| + ?| ? }/
: Not unless you backwhack that internal there.
: [...]
: @myfavoritepunctuations = [ ] { } \ : ++ $ . ? / +| + ?| ? ;
:
: Why isn't
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 04:18:51PM -0700, gcomnz wrote:
: More questions stemming from cookbook work... Decimal Comparisons:
:
: The most common recipe around for comparisons is to use sprintf to cut
: the decimals to size and then compare strings. Seems ugly.
Certainly, but I don't think the
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:11:59AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: Error handling is simple, a failed chdir returns undef and sets errno.
:
: $CWD = $dir err die Can't chdir to $dir: $!;
Offhand, I guess my main semantic problem with it is that if a chdir
fails, you aren't in an
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:45:14PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
: defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
:
: Interesting, I hadn't considered that.
:
: Having a quick browse through some
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:45:16AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Among the various ways of declaring variables, will Perl 6 have a way to
: say, this variable is highly temporary, and may be re-declared within
: the same scope, or in a nested scope without concern? I often find
: myself doing:
:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 06:04:32PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: No, Ucfirst it can't be, I think. And ALLCAPS is ugly. @ is taken (and
: ugly). Suggestions?
Maybe we could define an ok operator that suppresses only the
*first* warning produced by its argument(s). Then if you get multiple
warnings, you
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:28:31AM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: David Wheeler wrote:
:
: But the first person to write [a...] gets what's comin' to 'em.
:
: Is that nothing (since '.' lt 'a'), or everything after 'a'?
Might as well make it everything after 'a' for consistency. One could
also view
I would like to get rid of all those implicit scopes. The only
exception would be that any topicalizing modifier allocates a private
lexical $_ scoped to just that statement. But dynamic scoping may
happen only at explicit block boundaries.
I can see the argument for the other side, where any
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:12:46PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: Thus spake Larry Wall:
: Offhand, I guess my main semantic problem with it is that if a chdir
: fails, you aren't in an undefined location, which the new value of $CWD
: would seem to indicate. You're just where you were
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:44:03PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Is there a ?ws-like thingy that is always \s+?
Not currently, since \s+ is there. ?ws used to be that, but
currently is defined as the magical whitespace matcher used by :words.
: Do \s and ?ws match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0?
Yes.
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:11:24AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Pasted from pugs/examples/cookbook/01-00introduction.p6:
:
: # XXX - question: How equal are bunches of spaces to tabs?
: # -- I'd say that's a question for perl6lang
This seems to be singularly short on context, but if it has to do
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 12:46:47AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-15 15:38 (-0700):
: : Do \s and ?ws match non-breaking whitespace, U+00A0?
: Yes.
:
: That makes \s+ and \s*, and thus ?ws very useless for anything but
: trimming whitespace. For splitting (including word
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 03:22:48PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 11:52:38PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: becomes an unverifiable operation. You have to use chdir() if you want to
: error check and $CWD is reduced to a scripting feature.
:
: Well, after failure it can
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
(B: Juerd wrote:
(B: According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English
(B: speakers and 600 million people who have English as a second language.
(B: Should the remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:58:29PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
:
: We blitzed a discussion on #perl 3 minutes ago, reaching the
: conclusion that negated subscripts are cool.
:
: So i was thinking:
:
: subscripts are objects.
I'm all in favor of powerful constructs, but we need to be *really*
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:08:21AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: Good point. Another one is: how does the meta_operator determine the
: identity value for user-defined operators?
:
: (1,2,3,4,5) my_infix_op (3,2,4)
:
: Maybe we should say that the excess length is simply copied unchanged.
:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: So, what's the important downside of all this?
The fact that smartmatching a list doesn't slice, but is defined to
be array equality with smartmatch of each element in order:
if @array ~~ (1,2,3,many) { say array can count }
Larry
In writing some character class translation, I realized that
-[a-z]
and its ilk are rather hard to read because of the two hyphens
that mean different things. We can't use ![a-z] because that's a
0-width lookahead. Given that we're trying to get rid of special
exceptions, and - in
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:53:32PM -0400, Mark Reed wrote:
(B: I think that, in general, at the level of Perl code, 1
$B!H(Bcharacter$B!I(B should be
(B: one code point, and any higher-level support for combining and splitting
(B: should be outside the core, in Unicode::Whatever.
(B
(BI
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:36:02AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
: wolverian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 12:18:45PM -0400, MrJoltCola wrote:
: I cannot say how much Perl6 will expose to the high level language.
:
: That is what I'm wondering about. I'm sorry I was so
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:08:43AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: I was thinking about this today, actually, because my CS textbook was
: talking about multidimensional arrays. If we make an infinite index
: mean slice until you can slice no more, then we can possibly have a
: Cterm:*
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:08:04PM -0700, gcomnz wrote:
: I read followed by 0 or more combining characters to mean that it is
: smart enough to combine the vowels in Arabic and other syllabic
: alphabets that use special conjuncts. However I'm also not exactly
: sure if that's even reasonably
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 09:52:38PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: gcomnz wrote:
:
: Hey all, not sure if I'm just missing some obvious source of
: information, but I used trim() as a function in a cookbook example,
: then realized that it's not even in S29...
:
: There is a brief mention of trim(),
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:31:08PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Yes. It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
: Any foo (or foo:...) followed by ... should be parsed as a single
: term selecting the function that MMD would dispatch to given that
: type
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:07:33AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Thomas Sandlaß writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Yes. It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
: Any foo (or foo:...) followed by ... should be parsed as a single
: term selecting the function that MMD would dispatch
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Juerd wrote:
: And will Perl 6 reference values rather than their containers, that is:
: will \$foo differ when $foo gets a new value, just as in Python id(foo)
: changes after foo += 1?
:
: Depends on the definition of the
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: HaloO Larry,
:
: you wrote:
: for ordinary functions. If it gets really popular people might
: even start writing:
:
: sub foo :(Str,Int) {...}
:
: I like it, but that could mean it will not become popular :))
: And this is
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-06 11:10 (-0700):
: $$ref follow the ref list to the actual object.
:
: my $foo;
: my $bar = \$foo;
: my $quux = \$bar;
: my $xyzzy = \$quux;
:
: How then, with only $xyzzy, do you get $bar
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:43:55PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Wed, Apr 06, 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
: I think it's time to break out
: the colon again and use something like:
:
: infix:+:(Complex, Complex);
:
: or
:
: foo:(Str,Int)
:
: for ordinary functions
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:34:13PM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote:
: On Monday 04 April 2005 06:34 pm, Juerd wrote:
: Terrence Brannon skribis 2005-04-04 18:45 (+):
: So, to avoid confusion with the common understanding of flattening in
: Perl, perhaps it should be called spreading or
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:00:09PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Roles cannot be derived from, so they're always final in that sense.
: We should probably consider them closed by default as well, or at least
: closed after first use. If a role specifies implementation, it's
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:38:05PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: Hi,
:
: Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Mon, 4 Apr 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt writes:
: What does pick return on hashes? Does it return a random value or a
: random pair? (I suppose returning a pair is more useful.)
:
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:36:18AM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: (Replying to p6l instead of p6c as requested.)
:
: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: (Now that builtins are just functions out in * space, we can probably
: afford to throw a few more convenience functions
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
That depends on whether you mean
([EMAIL PROTECTED]).words
or
~(@array.words)
It happens to mean the latter. A . binds tighter than a symbolic
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 06:38:43PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Ups, a missing : warps this to a completly different meaning!
: Comparing a coderef infix with the comparison operator =
: to the word list 'Scalar of Ref of Ref of Int,Int'.
:
: I tried to ask what infix:=Scalar of Ref of Ref of
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:55:23PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: but if you use vim or emacs inside a terminal, you'll want to make sure
: it's in iso-latin-1 mode (e.g. in gnome-terminal, you have to use the
: menu: Terminal-Set Character Encoding)
If you going to that trouble, at least try your
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:49:24AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: I've included assignment forms of all operators in the exponentiation,
: multiplicative, additive, junctive, and tight logical levels; this may
: be overkill or underkill. I've not included hyper forms of these
:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:06:01AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Is your view of the world like Python or like Perl 5?
Them's fightin' words. :-)
: Values have no identity in Perl 5.
That's slightly not true, insofar as Perl 5 distinguishes hash keys
by value (albeit filtered through stringification).
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:22:43AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:46 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: :
: : In P6, an object is a data-type. It's not a reference, and any member
: : payload is attached directly to the variable
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:19:33PM +0800, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Luke Palmer wrote:
: Supposing I had a doc trait, could I say:
:sub f2c (Num $temp docTemperature in degrees F)
:docConvert degress F to degrees C
:{...}
: Or would I be forced to spell it doc('stuff') ?
: Well, first
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:11:37PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: If you declare a variable to be of a type (let's even say a class to be
: specific), then you have hinted to the compiler as to the nature of that
: variable, but nothing is certain.
:
: That is to say that the compiler cannot:
:
:
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 03:03:09PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 02:37:24PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: : How can you have a level independent position?
:
: By not confusing positions with numbers. They're just pointers into
: a particular string
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:20:28AM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: How should this stuff be expressed? 'use less' is cute, but i don't
: think it really gets there.
It's mostly there as a placeholder for all the true pragmas that
can be ignored if you don't understand them, an idea I originally
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 11:27:09PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 03:31:53PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: 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.
:
: How about defining
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:46:22PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: So, what is the operator for reference comparison?
The =:= operator is almost certainly what you want here.
Larry
: On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 23:46 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 08:04:22AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
:
: What I want to be able to do is compare two references to see if they
: point to the same thing, in this case an object, but in other cases
: perhaps some other type
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 08:39:52AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I'm pretty sure that =:= does what you want. If you have two scalar
: references, you might have to spell it like this:
:
: $$x =:= $$y
Unnecessary, I think. I want
$x =:= @y
to tell me whether the reference in $x is to
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Is typing optional in the sense that it is no syntax error but
: otherwise ignored? To me this is pain but no gain :(
Well, you guys keep ignoring the answer. Let me put it a bit more
mathematically. The information in
my X
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:40:26AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: There _is_ a way to do it, actually, but we need to really screw around
: with what kinds of things are inferred. In the case:
:
: my $a;
: $a.m(1);
:
: We assign the type objects with an 'm' method that can take a single
:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 12:05:12PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: If I understand you correctly the use statement is more like a
: linker/loader directive than a compile time interface include?
That is up to the module being used. use is a linker, but it's
only required to link enough
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 06:38:31PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
(B: Luke Palmer skribis 2005-03-29 6:14 (-0700):
(B: method iterate () {
(B: for (@.objs) {
(B: .process($_); # oops
(B: }
(B: }
(B:
(B: There is an alarming similarity with
(B:
(B:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:53:07AM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 07:38:10PM -, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: : And might I also ask why in Perl 6 (if not Parrot) there seems to be
: : no type support for strings with known encodings which
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 03:40:14PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Now you can ask for whatever you like:
:
: say We have {.new $money}
:
: Though you might have some snazzy way of saying that.
Just by the by, that's illegal syntax. Methods with arguments
require parens. You could,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:30:14PM -0700, Craig DeForest wrote:
: Yow -- units would be extra cool for perl6: I know of no other language that
: has units support built in. It would go a long way toward making perl6 the
: language of choice for students in the physical sciences...
Well, yes.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 02:11:29PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:03:45PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Hmm, well, if it got that far. Given strict being on by default,
: this particular example should probably just die on the fact that $
: isn't declared, since there's
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 06:49:58PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
: Er, I'm not sure you will want to--I'm using PPI's evil twin brother,
: PPD (the actual Perl parser). I've just modified it so it doesn't
: forget anything I want it to remember. (As you know, the standard
: parser throws away gobs
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:37:41AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: $! will be a legal variable name. $/ is going away,
:
: By which you mean that $/ is turning into a special $0.
I'd say that $0 is a specialization of $/, but yes, basically, they
both represent the current match result, albeit
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 09:59:10AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 00:27 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: $$ is now $*PID. ($$foo is now unambuous.)
:
: $0 is gone in favor of $*PROGRAM_NAME or some such.
:
: You know, Java did one thing in this respect that I liked
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:31:07AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Perhaps good administration would be to introduce a generic Deprecated::
: namespace. Module authors can move their own old modules there if they
: want, and there can be Deprecated::P5 for stuff like dbmopen,
:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:45:30PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Rod Adams:
: Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: * As far as I can tell, the choice of spelling an array parameter
:CArray @a or CArray $a is entirely cosmetic: both @a and
:$a are capable of holding an Array reference.
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 03:13:07AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Chip Salzenberg writes:
: I'm working on enhancing Perl6::Subs[*] to support more parameter
: traits than just Cis required. I have some questions about
: parameters and traits. (These questions all apply to pure Perl 6,
: which
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 02:37:24PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: %+ and %- are gone. $0, $1, $2, etc. are all objects that know
: where they .start and .end. (Mind you, those methods return magical
: positions that are Unicode level independent.)
:
: How can you have a level
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 07:38:10PM -, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: Would this be a good time to ask for explanation for Cstr being
: never Unicode, while CStr is always Unicode, thus leading to an
: inability to box a non-Unicode string?
As Rod said, str is just a way of declaring a byte buffer,
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 03:38:38PM +0800, song10 wrote:
: hi, all
:
: is there any way to import constants from other modules without
: specifying scope everytime?
: such like this:
:
: module A;
: use constant { PI = 3.14, VER = 1.1 }
: ...
:
:
:
: module B;
: my $var = A::PI; # this way
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:21:18PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: That's actually weirdly symmetrical with the notion that only subs can
: impose compile-time context on their arguments, while methods always
: have to assume list context because you have to generate
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 12:04:39AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
: LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: LW As I mentioned in my other message, I think we should not assume that
: LW Perl 6 works the same in this regard as Perl 5 does. There needs to be
: LW something we can return
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:57:48PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
: LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: LW That being said, in Perl 5, if you say
:
: LW @a = undef;
:
: LW you don't get an undefined array. I'd like to make undef smart enough
: LW about list contexts
On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:27:53PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
: Also, I saw another mention recently (possibly on TPF request for
: donations) about the Perl 5 to Perl 6 converter, and it being 40%
: completed? ... Larry?
Well, by one reckoning it's 0% done. At the moment I'm just working
on a
On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 12:05:06PM +1100, Andrew Savige wrote:
: I noticed the Pugs folks have started porting File::Spec and
: other modules to Pugs, which leads me to ask this question.
: I've also taken a look at Rod Adams S29.
:
: There a quite a few p5 standard libraries with crusty old user
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:08:17PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:53:06 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: This seems a little backwards--I think all positionals should be bound
: before you start binding named pairs, if currying is to be consistent with
: ordinary binding
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 12:58:32PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Note, the adverbial :{...} is defined as a named binding to the first
: * parameter (or first *$ parameter if there isn't a slurpy *), so
: it's already bound by Step C, even if it occurred later syntactically.
Hmm, that's ambiguous
On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 03:09:37PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: Step A: For each positional parameter, if the next supplied argument is:
:
: 1) a non-pair
: 2) a pair, and this parameter is explicitly declared Pair, or
: 3) a hash, and this parameter
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:18:44PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Rod Adams wrote:
: multi sub postcircumflex::[ ](MyArray $obj : [EMAIL PROTECTED]) is rw
{...}
:
: but I'll wait for S14 before speculating further.
:
: Will that ever be written? And if yes, will it be like S13 which
: is
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 06:58:51PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: my @array of Int;
:
: is really short for
:
: my @array is Array of Int;
:
: How does 'is' relate to 'does'? I mean is the above @array
: ready for operation?
Yes, I think is typically implies
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 03:28:31PM +, Peter Haworth wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:41:27 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Okay, I've come around to liking it, but I think we have to say that
: 0x, 0d, 0o, 0b, and whatever else we come up with are just setting
: the default radix. If a string
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:14:16AM -0500, Stevan Little wrote:
: Is subst an object/type?
: Or is it a method of the Str object?
I suspect it's just a method, and the ~~ binding of s/// is merely
syntactic sugar for the method call.
: If it is an object ...
:
: Does s/// produce a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 07:33:43PM +0100, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: So we should probably
: have a generalized radix_to_dec($radix,$input) function out there
: somewhere instead.
:
: Why not shift it onto the type system:
:
: my Int $i = $input as Str[$radix] as Int;
:
: A bit
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 05:43:52PM +0200, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: The algorithmic approach to binding some params:
:
: bind invocants
:
: bind named parameters, and keep leftover pairs for %_
:
: treat nonpairs as positionals, and bind them sequentially. Left
: over
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
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
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 10:33:04PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I'm thinking Cchr and Cord 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
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
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 09:36:49PM -0500, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: Nobody on #perl6 today could answer this one. Is:
: Str | Int where { $_ }
: the same as:
: (Str | Int) where { $_ }
: or:
: Str | (Int where { $_ })
: ?
where binds looser than |, but it's a member of a select group
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:07:49PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I propose that we make a few decisions about strings in Perl. I've read
: all the synopses, several list threads on the topic, and a few web
: guides to Unicode. I've also thought a lot about how to cleanly define
: all the string
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:28:18AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: Thus:
:
: eval read :file(foo);
:
: There you have it.
The problem being that it will now report errors in some random
temporary string rather than at some line number in a file. Not good.
Orthogonality strikes again.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 05:01:50AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I'll try to come up with something decent, if no one beats me to it.
: Sadly, the C style hex2int, oct2int might be the least confusing, but
: heinously ugly.
Yes, though there are two difficulties right there in the names:
hardwiring
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 08:21:07AM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
: On 3/18/05 12:18 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
: Autochomping is one of the motivations for switching from while to
: for for the normal line input method, since while might think a
: blank line is false, while for only cares whether
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 12:00:32PM -0500, John Macdonald wrote:
: Generally when I do this I am not only deleting the character
: from the string, but also moving it to another scaler to use;
: so substr isn't a simple replacement because you'd have to
: use it twice.
Well, not lately. There's
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:59:43PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: What it doesn't solve is the $.method vs .method issue. They look similar
: but one works on the invocant and one works on $_. Still a trap.
Yes, and that's probably the killer of the oc idea. So much for
Sleep Brain, heh,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:49:12PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: I haven't gotten a solid answer on when and how Perl will autogenerate
: methods from subs.
In general I don't think of it as autogeneration at all, but as
failover to a different dispatcher. I can't think of a case where an
ordinary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:00:08PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
: Personally, .foo meaning $self.foo seems more consistent to my mind, and
: I'd happily standardise on implicit invocants.
I'm thinking about it. There are definitely things to be said for both
sides, and maybe we can come up with a
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:06:46AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I'll just point out, the rest of this message, with all the autocopy
: complexity (according to /some/ people), uses this assumption. It all
: happily goes away if $self.:bar returns a list if @:bar is declared.
: And I can't, off
I've been thinking about this in my sleep, and at the moment I think
I'd rather keep .foo meaning $_.foo, but break the automatic binding
of the invocant to $_. Instead of that, I'd like to see a really,
really short alias for $self. Suppose we pick o for that, short
for object. Then we get
1201 - 1300 of 2342 matches
Mail list logo
