[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> So let's go ahead and make it ??!!. (At least this week...)
I hereby christen this "the interrobang operator".
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang)
--
"Your fault: core dumped"
-- MegaHAL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Kennedy) writes:
> Forgive my ignorance here, but for all of these different ways of
> doing constants, will they all optimize (including partial
> evaluation/currying) at compile/build/init/run-time?
Gosh, I hope not.
> my $gravity is constant = 10; # One significant figu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ingo Blechschmidt) writes:
> I think the only thing you're missing are two braces:
> $.request_class = class is Foo::Request {};
Thank you; then how do I put methods into $.request_class?
--
"I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware."
-- Peter da Silva
Hello,
I'm having a seriously good time porting Maypole to Perl 6. If you
still have reservations about how Perl 6 is going to be to program in,
I urge you to try programming in it.
Now, commercial over, I have some questions.
What's the syntax for declaring inherited anonymous classe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Hursh) writes:
> Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried to get a department of
> mine to switch over to perl from csh and REXX of all things, I have
> co-workers I hope never see this.
They may need to write their own operating system if they want to avoid the
dodgy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
> Don't you think it's preferable to temp-expanding and compiling at runtime?
Not if it's slower, no. The choice was made not to go with bytecode because
of a deficiency in Perl. If that deficiency wasn't there, then sure, go
with bytecode.
But you're mis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
> PAR doesn't compile or precompile to bytecode, it packages, temp-expands,
> and runs.
It *could* do this, but loading bytecode in Perl 5 is slower than loading
and compiling source, so there's not really much point. What's so magic
about bytecode, anyway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
> there's an official way, you'll certainly see less wheel reinvention than in
> Perl 5. This is a good thing.
That is only true if you accept the fundamentalist principle that one should
never reinvent wheels. If that were true, then we wouldn't be worki
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
> Anyway, what it'll give me is "official" support for this type of thing.
Call me a crazy man, but I *like* the lack of official support.
I actually count it as a Good Thing that perl can be made to do cool stuff
without Larry having to explicitly declar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> > my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new("blah");
>
> Wow, that's pretty amazing... uh... I think I'd just prefer to do it
> the old fashioned way. If my suggestion was really that horrific, I
> withdraw the question.
These days, to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Storrs) writes:
> Does it even make sense to take the Infiniteth element of an array?
You should have used a hash in the first place.
--
BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentation. -Ari Suntioinen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> Could methods like "[]" and "{}" *default* to "postcircumfix:"?
A more interesting question is "does it mean anything for them *not* to be
postcircumfix"?
After all, the only other use would be "$foo.[]($bar, $baz)", which is
practically identical. Unless you w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > $_='foo bar baz';
> > split;
> > # @STACK now is (1, 'foo', 'bar', 'baz');
> > I can imagine some uses for that...
>
> Sick... and... wrong. :-)
>
> Not only would it mess with what things have to do in void context, it
> would fudge up the garba
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I
> can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without
> any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the
> fact it isn't going to be, it just seems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > message is something I really need to respond to, I probably won't
> > reply for the time being or will reply curtly.
>
> The difference?
Yeah, I doubt anyone will notoice.
> Feel better, Simon.
Thanks. And no thanks to whatever worm it was tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chromatic) writes:
> Is "10" a string? Is it a number? Is "10base-T" a string? Is it a
> number? Is an object with overloaded stringification and numification a
> number? Is it a string?
>
> I don't know a good heuristic for solving these problems. If you have
> one, it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> is it really that new and scary?
No, but not for the reasons you think. You seem to believe that you're
comparing Perl and a Perl-derived language and pointing out that they're
both like Perl, but it looks like you're comparing two Algol-derived
language
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> familiar. You'll find this in the earlier Exegeses, Piers Cawley's
> article "Perl 6: Not Just for Damians"
> (http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html), some of the
> presentations from the last few conference seasons, and scattered about
> the c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes:
> I remember reading a transcript of a talk Larry gave sometime which mentioned
> a conversation between Heidi Wall and Damian Conway, in which Heidi said
> something like "But what is the future apart from a succession of tomorrows?"
I apologise for asking this here, but I can't think of anywhere better for
it, and I have a feeling what I'm looking for was in a Perl 6-related talk,
so...
I remember reading a transcript of a talk Larry gave sometime which mentioned
a conversation between Heidi Wall and Damian Conway, in which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply
> switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax.
And POSIX be damned!
--
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
- Agent J, Men in Black
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
>
> which doesn't quite work, because $spot is undefined. What probably happens
> is that the my cheats and puts a version of undef in there that knows it
> should dispatch to the Dog class if you call .self:new() on it. Anyway,
> we'll make it work one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark J. Reed) writes:
> > The biggest use of modulus is in implementing hashes
>
> Rather, one of the biggest uses. I don't have documentation to support
> the claim that it is the biggest, and there are certainly others -
> date arithmetic, astronomy etc.
I'll bet you the ac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> $ find . -name \*.pl | wc -l
> 330
> $ find . -name \*.pl -exec grep -hlE 'qx|`|`|readpipe' {} \; | wc -l
> 123
>
> `` gets used an awful lot
But that's in Perl 5, which is a glue language.
--
"Though a program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > if (specific() ?? detail1() && detail2() :: general()) {...}
>
> For some value of "correct" I suppose. Using ??:: within an if/else context
> makes my skin crawl, stylistically. :-(
Ah, then use if!
if (if(specific()) { detail() } else { ge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Since the emacs codebase is already ported to many platforms, it should
> be trivial to add this to the core perl distribution. Perhaps Simon
> would agree to lead this effort?
I would laugh, but http://search.cpan.org/~jtobey/Emacs-EPL-0.7/
--
On ou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Gottman) writes:
> This function would be very useful in inner loops, so if it is possible to
> implement it more efficiently in the core than as a sub in a module I think
> we should do so.
And, if it's possible to implement it more efficiently in the core than as a
sub in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Before this gets simonized, let me add that this seems genuinely useful: It provides
> a way of constructing a loop in a dimension that is not really accessible, except
> via recursion.
Oh, it *is* useful, and it's extremely nice to know that someth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good
> > idea. Why stop only at four states?
>
> Total about twelve possible "states" plus junctions, of which eight or nine
> would be 'useful', and only three would be knowingly u
I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good
idea. Why stop only at four states?
--
... though the Japanese must be the most stupid people... I'm sure I
read somewhere that Tokyo has the densest population in the world...
- Gid Holyoake, sdm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carissa) writes:
> Obviously the Perl6 community has accepted that it's possible to have
> variants on operators for things like vectorization. I'm wondering if there
> would be any desire, need or room for what I have so far thought of as
> "persistent" (or "Energizer Bunny") o
"Oh, it's got lots of Japanese in it, I'd better read it..." :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> Some will argue that since English doesn't have a grammatical
> postfix topicalizer like Japanese, we should stick with something
> like more English-like:
>
> $x = (.a + .b + .c given $f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
> Did I miss something? Was there ever an apocalyse 7?
Yes, there was. It was tacked on the end of Apocalypse 6, and said
essentially "No longer in core. See Damian."
--
DYSFUNCTION:
The Only Consistent Feature of All of Your Dissatisfying
Relati
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Thanks for those. We'll leave them out overnight and see if the elves
> will make them disappear from the various on-line versions. ;-)
It may take a *couple* of nights, but the elves will be at work.
--
Gods, you know your house is full of goths when
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> Also, not strictly to do with formats but raised by the above, how is
> infinity written in Perl 6?
â
?
--
even though I know what a 'one time pad' is, it still sounds like
a feminine hygiene product.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> Also, not strictly to do with formats but raised by the above, how is
> infinity written in Perl 6?
â
--
Complete the following sentence: People *ought* to weigh bricks, cats
and cinnamon in the same units because... - Ian Johnston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> At the current rate, the aforementioned apoc #11 will be out sometime
> after I die, a frustrated old man who remembers the glory days of Perl
> 3.
The current rate is not going to be sustained; the Perl 6 class sytem
is a massive thing, and once that's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> It's the coherence that I can't delegate, and if I tried to, we would
> certainly end up with Second System Syndrome Done Wrong, instead of Done
> Right.
You know, it's statements like this that make it hard for even me to
be curmudgeonly.
> E7 is com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bennett Todd) writes:
> 2004-02-26T14:26:47 Larry Wall:
> > Well now, I remember Perl 0, sonny.
>
> Does that still exist anywhere?
If nowhere else, Larry's got a copy IN HIS HEAD. :)
--
I have heard that the universe does not support atomic operations
(although I've not see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Whipp) writes:
> @sorted = sort { infix:<=> map { scalar $_.foo('bar').compute } @^_ } }
> @data
Abusing the rubyometer slightly:
@data = @sorted.sort( op => &infix:<=>, key => { $^a.foo('bar').compute } );
--
If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Crane) writes:
> One option might be an 'rsort' function, but I think that's somewhat lacking
> in the taste department.
Agreed.
> Another might be as simple as
>
> @unsorted ==> sort ==> reverse ==> @sorted;
@sorted <== sort <== @unsorted, no? ;)
> @unsorted ==>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Scott) writes:
> On 10 Feb 2004, at 14:09, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
> > I wonder how long it'll be before someone reimplements
> > them in in PIR...
>
> or Perl6 perchance.
Well, Perl6::Rules should be coming out soon, so that should help.
--
The problem with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Wardley) writes:
> Sure, make Perl Unicode compliant, right down to variable and operator
> names. But don't make people spend an afternoon messing around with mutt,
> vim, emacs and all the other tools they use, just so that they can read,
> write, email and print Perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael.Firestone) writes:
> As there is no search engine at this moment
groups.google.com might work for you.
--
Wouldn't you love to fill out that report? "Company asset #423423
was lost while fighting the forces of evil."
-- Chris Adams in the scary.devil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> is classof($x)
Ouch. $x's class isn't a property or trait of it?
> class AnonClass is classof($x) does FooBar { }.bless($x, foobar => bar)
I don't understand what the bit at the end is doing. This is calling .bless
on the overriden method? And I'm not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> Well, just for clarification; in my anecdotal case (server-side web
> applications), the speed I actually need is "as much as I can get",
> and "all the time". Every N cycles I save represents an increase in
> peak traffic capabilities per server, whic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes:
> I am not seeing unicode.
Don't worry because, and I honestly don't mean this disparagingly - by the
time Perl 6 is ready for prime-time, you will. Larry got this one right.
--
"Jesus ate my mouse" or some similar banality.
-- Megahal (trained on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> P.S. I think we deserve a $rubyometer-- for bypassing mixins.
I think you deserve loud and wild applause for an object model I want
to use Right Now Dammit.
--
Overall there is a smell of fried onions. (fnord)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> I think we also need to be skeptical of the false economy of putting such
> sugar into CP6AN, if a sizable portion of the community is going to
> download it anyway.
"The standard Perl library will be almost entirely removed. The point of this
is to fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> $substituted = ($text ~~ s/$pattern/$replacement/) but nothing;
Surely "no buts"? :)
> What I really want is a functional version of s///. Like:
> my $substituted = $text.s(/$pattern/, { $replacement });
> Without modifying $text.
$rubyometer++;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes:
> We talked about this today. Our current thought is to retroactively
> write the Synopses and keep those up-to-date (with notes in the outdated
> parts of the A's and E's pointing to the relevant section of the
> S's).
To be honest, I don't care how it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> Sigh. There's no =~ operator in Perl 6.
How should we go about bringing A3 up to match current reality? It is, after
all, over two years old now.
--
End July 2001 - Alpha release for demonstration at TPC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
> &cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
$cleanup = bless {}, class {
method DESTROY { ... }
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> > Luke Palmer:
> > > That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
> Will be able to.
I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech
is sufficiently advanced to massively clone Larry...
--
Sometimes it's better n
Luke Palmer:
> Well... it is and isn't. At first sight, it makes the language look
> huge, the parser complex, a lot of syntax to master, etc. It also seems
> to me that there is little discrimination when adding new syntax.
Correct.
> But I've come to look at it another way. Perl 6 is doing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
> reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
way to write it, but didn't see one.
> So,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Shitov) writes:
> Is it possible to get environment variables from perl6 programme? It
> failes when I try to use perl5 hash %ENV. Thanks.
Are you sure you're using the Perl 6 hash syntax? (%ENV{FOO} rather than Perl
5-style $ENV{FOO})
What version of Perl 6 are you usin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> But for the time being I'm tied to an IV pole
We got rid of those; they're PMC poles now.
Get well soon,
Simon
--
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
> macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ * }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(//) {
> $block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure som
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> [$lhs, $rhs]æ\220\215.æ\235\237compile;
What's that in old money?
--
As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you
teach him to grep for fish, he'll leave you alone all weekend. If you
encourage him to beg for fish, pretty soon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> >I know what BASIC means, but what the hell is a PCM and what is a IMCC
> >supposed to mean? And what is a CPS? The FAQ doesn't cover this...
>
> PMC is Pulse Code Modulation
That's PCM. PMC is Phillip Martin Cozens, my father.
--
Will your long-winded
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
> Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them)
> to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk
> image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like
People get upset when CPAN authors add stuff t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes:
> The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or
> Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a
> tutorial... but who knows). But that means I must write something which
> will work :-)
Just a hin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there
> may need to be a special case for allowing a single &block parameter after
> the slurpy
And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches...
(Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
> My only dream is that by this time next year we have a fully-
> functional-people-can-use-it-in-production Perl6. It doesn't even
> have to be 100% complete; I think just 85% would be enough if it were
> the right 85%.
I've been using an 85%-compl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> replacing, or merging, formats with emit-rules
> seems like an interesting project.
I dunno, I think it fires my "change for the sake of change" alarm bells. So
far we're already throwing away thirty years of^W^W^W^W^W^Wrationalising one
Unix little l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin Steiner) writes:
>Description: This list is for discussing user-visible changes to
>the language.
>
> It's somewhat unnerving to post on topic and (hopefully) politely and
I think your post was spot on; the only problem I had with it is that I felt
it was addressin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin Steiner) writes:
> Well, it's a bike shed.
Perhaps best not to have people expend lots of energy painting bike sheds
until the nuclear reactor's anywhere near functional, though.
I think the whole thing can be done, in whatever style people would like,
using whatever natt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> It will still have a lot of power in text processing, and still be a
> powerful "quicky" language, but that's no longer its primary focus --
> not to say that highly structured programming is.
So, uh, what is?
> And you can still do it the Perl 5 way in P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> I don't know what the "official" (this week) policy is, but I
> think it's a bad idea for references to auto-dereference.
keys %$hash_r would bore me compared to keys $hash_r, since 'keys' can
easily know that it wants a hash; in fact, I thought that auto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> No! Please! PHP tried this and gets it very wrong indeed
Don't be too hasty on the basis of one failure - Ruby tried it and got
it very right indeed. In fact, Ruby has three types of equality/match
operator, all slightly different, but most people on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes:
> >Well, if you optimize for the most common case, throw out threads altogether.
>
> Well, I almost would agree with you since cooperative threading can
> almost entirely be done in perl code, since they are built in
> continuations. I actually gave a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes:
> I think if we apply the Huffman principle here by optimizing for the
> most common case, cooperative threading wins from preemptive threading.
Well, if you optimize for the most common case, throw out threads altogether.
--
"The bad reputation UNIX
To what extent should the (presumably library-side) ability to parse a
given markup language influence Perl 6's core language design? (which
is what this list is nominally about.) I think this ought to
approximate to "none at all".
--
I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese, but complaini
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes:
> OK, I suppose that works although that still means you're moving the
> complexity from the perl implementation to its usage: in this case,
> the perl 6 parser which is written in perl 6
No, I don't believe that's what's happening. My concern is that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> >Compilation's just execution of a regex, albeit the Perl6::Grammar::program
> >regex, and that regex will need to be modified while it's in operation in
> >order to pick up macro "is parsed" definitions and apply them to the rest
> >of what it's parsing.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> At 5:47 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> >> you aren't allowed to selectively redefine
> >> rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules.
> >
> >T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
> you aren't allowed to selectively redefine
> rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules.
This is precisely what a macro does.
--
"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I only
coded it."
(Attributed to Linus Torvald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Thanks for the pointer. I'm taking a very different approach, but it
> will certainly be useful to have two independent and parallel
> implementations to run against each other.
Well, I'll try and dig out the one I wrote at STL too, if regexes haven't
ch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes:
> Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already
> had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I've
> forgotten where it lives or their real name.
ttp://www.liacs.nl/~mavduin/P6P5_0.00_01.t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> Just wait till you see P::RD's successor: Perl6::Rules ;-)
I was waiting for its successor, Parse::FastDescent. ;)
Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already
had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I'v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> 1- Huffman. "req" is a valuable 3-letter token
It only has "value" if there's a better use for it. :)
--
IDIOCY:
Never Underestimate The Power Of Stupid People In Large Groups
http://www.despa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Morin) writes:
> I have commented before on the face that Perl doesn't have "Power Tools"
> (read, idioms) that are well suited for handling XML. Turns out that
> Tim Bray agrees.
Tim Bray also says he gives up and uses regexes as a quick and dirty work
around. So maybe th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aldo Calpini) writes:
> any (possibly meaningful) feedback will be very appreciated.
I think Type should be called Value, and that arrays should possibly be a
mixin of lists, but apart from that it looks fine. Oh, and you missed
out Grammars; and I don't know if macros are actua
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes:
> Well... I've finally got my act together and invoice ORA for the
> summary money that's destined for TPF and I would dearly love to see
> all of that lump of cash go to Larry.
Yay, another attempt to confuse me and ORA's payments division. ;) I'll
see wha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> we have a definitive
^^
Remember that this is Perl 6. You keep using that word, etc.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, "bullet"); }
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Wardley) writes:
> Like mixins? Perhaps something like this:
>
> class My::Class;
> mixin My::Random::Number::Generator qw( rand );
> mixin My::Serialisation::Marshall qw( freeze thaw );
Yey! With this, the Perl6-o-meter now stands at:
PERL 5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes:
> > Oh well, it was only two letters. There wasn't anything about
> > approximate matching in A5, was there?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean, could you give an example?
This was a [MZ]u[nr]ich joke, I think.
--
Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes:
> Can someone please compile a list of all the "is foo" properties that
> have been suggested/accepted as being pre-defined by the language?
> I can't keep track of them all.
Well, here's a start. Here are the ones I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes:
> In the design meetings early this month we added C for true
> pass-by-value.
Can someone please compile a list of all the "is foo" properties that
have been suggested/accepted as being pre-defined by the language?
I can't keep track of them all.
--
So
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Let's support separable verbs.
That (http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/309.html) is a really good idea.
--
Writing software is more fun than working.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson) writes:
> That may well be true, but it seems to me that if people's jobs depend
> on those projects then there is (or could be or should be) a source of
> funding available, should such be required, namely the companies who are
> (hopefully) making a profit on the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that, to many people, Perl 6 is
> far less important than mod_Perl, or DBI, or HTML::Mason, or POE, or
> PDL, or Inline, or SpamAssassin, or XML::Parser, or YAML, or the
> Slashcode, or any of a hundred other pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> I don't think any aspect
> of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5
> behaviors,
Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't
name-calling; this is a plea for Perl 6 not to become a language designed
by a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> No. I said it was _special_, not _impossible_.
You said in Perl 5 it was X instead of Y. But it turned out to be Y
after all.
--
"He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> ...the absence of the commas is what's special. If they were normal
> functions/subroutines/methods/whatever, you would need a comma after
> the first argument
This is plainly untrue. See the "perlsub" documentation, which talks about
"creating your o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson) writes:
> I trust that we are all sufficiently grown up and devoid of marketing hype
> that we can judge suggestions on their own merit.
Do you need pointing to the archives at this point?
--
DYSFUNCTION:
The Only Consistent Feature of All of Your Dissatisfyi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes:
> # > # could do the same thing with a sub with a prototype of
> # > # (&block, *@list).
>
> OK. Let's say I'm implementing HugeOnDiskArray, and instead of slurping
> the array in and grepping over it, I want to grab the elements one at a
> time, run them thr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes:
> # could do the same thing with a sub with a prototype of
> # (&block, *@list).
>
> Great. That could mean it won't work right for MyCustomArrayLikeThing.
Can you explain what you mean by this, because it's not apparent to me
that your statement is in any
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes:
> I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax, and how many only
> say they do because it's Damian Conway who proposed it. And map/grep aren't
> "specialized syntax", you could do the same thing with a sub with a prototype
> of (&block, *@list).
1 - 100 of 485 matches
Mail list logo
