On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 03:44:07PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
Count me among the crazed whales/mad dolphins/whatever you were referring
to. It would make it easier to explain to beginners the rules for calling
functions by eliminating a qualification (You can leave empty parens off
only if
This is my new toy. It's not perfect. I know what's lacking and I know
how to fix it, but time is always against us. You don't need any
documentation, you're intelligent people. Feed some code to
Perl6::Tokeniser::toke, and it'll give you an array.
Parser coming soon.
--
It's God. No, not
A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
$foo{bar}
actually should be written
%foo{bar}
?
I'm vaguely hoping that the answer is yes, because then we could treat
*all* instances of {...} as a block returning either a closure, a value
for subscripting, or an
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 09:28:18AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
%foo{bar}
It's bare, and it's a word.
I presume you're also happy with these ambiguities:
$foo{shift} vs. $foo{shift}
$foo{bar} vs. sub bar() { ... } $foo{bar}
vs. $foo{+bar}
vs. $foo{bar()}
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:53PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
@result = map - $a; $b { $a op $b } @a; @b;
Something seems wrong with this, but I can't quite put my finger
on what it is. I think it's the - directly after map - - looks
too much like an operator. And even if you read - as the
Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
If not _, then what? (if anything?)
--
Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained
by stupidity.
I'm trying to answer the question what does ^ mean?.
Can anything be hyperoperated, or just a built-in set of operations?
If anything, can user's subroutines be hyperoperated? How will they
know that they're being called in hyper context? If a built-in set
of operations, which ones?
--
You are
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:07:48PM -0800, Dew-Jones, Malcolm MSER:EX wrote:
Lets add an .interpolate method. The parameter(s) are rules that control
the interpolation, and the returned value is the interpolated string using
those rules.
$result = 'scalar $vars (only) will be
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:03:55PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Do they need to? In the simple case, the hyperoperator provides list
context to its arguments, but just calls the scalar operation repeatedly
to fake up the list operation.
Cool. So as far as the parser cares, ^ is simply a flag
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 08:32:36PM +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
Dave Storrs wrote:
[schnippe]
=head3 Generating Code on the Fly
What's this =head3 stuff? My pod processor barfs on it :)
Then update it. :)
- Forwarded message from Yukihiro Matsumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 03:29:46 +0900
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Subject: [ruby-talk:17165] Language desgin
Hi,
Here's my answer to the question about language design.
|dear yukihiro
snip
|I have visited
On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:06:10PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
http://simon-cozens.org/hacks/perl6.tar.gz
More examples, strict.pm, and *finally* support for properties.
A modified version of Damian's binary tree program from the exegesis
is included.
Now you can do some *real* Perl 6
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
pointless.
For what it's worth, I like it.
Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
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 which are critical of Perl, two of which are pretty
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:13:28PM -0800, Vijay Singh wrote:
Why is it that Me is *mouthing off*, but you're not? Why is that?
What makes you so *special*?
In Me's defence, at least they do occasionally produce some useful
thoughts about Perl 6, and are not here simply for personal attacks
on
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:31:36PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:34:49AM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
$input = 4;
$bool = $input 22;# $bool = 1 is valueR(22)
print ok! if $bool == 1; # whoops, '==' is looking at $bool.valueR
Well perhaps
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:16:12AM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
At *runtime*? You won't need computed gotos or eval anymore. You just have
one block of generic-looking code and you change what the syntax means before
it executes. Three routines in one!
Before? Bah, woosy. *AS* it
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
nice things about PL/SQL), but I would like to note that this statement,
while true, is effectively meaningless. Might as well say the same about
perl 5 because anyone who wanted to could hack toke.c.
OK, I'll put it another
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:08:04AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Can properties have properties?
No, but their scalar values can.
What I was asking, in a roundabout way, was if
$foo.bar.baz
makes sense; your answer suggests that it does. In which case, we can
teach the parser that a
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:20:20AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Subscripts don't fit here at all. And, in my option, shouldn't be made too.
Oh good, I was hoping you would say that; I misunderstood your message from
the 7th of June further up this thread to mean that dot was optional in
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 10:57:25PM -0500, Me wrote:
B) any syntaces chosen for core features won't jar with what
makes sense for the relational data sub-language (at least
not accidentally).
But since the end user is going to be able to redefine the syntax anyway,
this isn't an issue.
--
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:56:21PM -0500, Me wrote:
Yes. But if the syntax for arrays and db data are to
be simultaneously the same and as ideal as possible,
then either the core array syntax needs to be relatively
ideal for relational db data, or one needs to redefine
the array syntax to
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 03:31:09PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Even if your database is so simple that you do just want to model single
tables, it would be easy to build atop DBI.
That'd be Tie::DBI, then.
scream
This is the kind of thing that can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily
with
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 07:21:29PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
$ref.{a}can be $ref{a}
which can also be
$ref.a
Dereferencing a hashref is the same as accessing a property?
I hope not.
--
Did you know that 1 barn yard atmosphere =
I've been working on, uh, let's call it a Perl 6 emulator recently,
and I've come unstuck about a few things.
I'm sure I'll think of some more questions, but here we go for now:
Should properties interpolate in regular expressions? (and/or strings) I
don't suppose they should, because we don't
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 04:30:56PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
print $a-{test2};
Oh, hrm. Shouldn't it be $a{test2}? That works too, at any rate.
Does that mean that arrow between variable and subscript is optional,
or should this be some kind of error? Or should it mean something else
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 02:20:25PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
this is a confusing hack that might not save any cycles.
Please don't try defending it or $^d in terms of efficiency;
any variable that Perl has to keep track of magically takes a
performance hit. Remember $`, $', and $?
--
You
Thanks *very* much for your answers; I still have a lot of work left
to do, it seems. But I'm still a little confused:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 06:08:23AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Should properties interpolate in regular expressions? (and/or strings)
Do you mean property look-ups via the
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 07:59:31AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
But it's not as *convenient* as unadorned interpolation.
Disagree. Adorning a piece of syntax reminds the programmer that
something out of the ordinary is happening. It's a mental speed limit
sign - a traffic light, if you like -
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:24:50AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Can someone post a few ? I am open to what are the pros/cons
but right now my mind is thinking Whats the benefit of making
$a=(1,2,3); be the same as $a=[1,2,3]; when it could do something
different, ie what it does in perl5
A
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 01:42:38PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
Someone please tell me what automatic method generation is exactly.
package Foo;
sub AUTOLOAD {
my $method = $AUTOLOAD;
eval sub $method { warn qq/Please do not call this method again.\n/ }
goto $method;
}
--
I
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
BTW - There's a Ruby Inline::Perl module in alpha
testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
Inline::Python module already available...
And today I put the finishing
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
libraries (in annoying C) yet.
Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
subroutine calls to Perl builtins.
Oh, hrm. I wonder if I
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime
as custom ops.
You are a very bad man. Go to it.
I would do, but I'm getting segfaults when I reimplement op.c in Perl.
Unfortunately, I'm not joking.
--
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
*Nice*, but potentially a bugger to implement. I'm also sure you
can find semantic ambiguity in there if you look hard enough, but
can't come up with any example off hand.
$foo = 5;
print it + ($bar = 10) + it;
20 or 25
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 06:48:53PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
*Nice*, but potentially a bugger to implement.
Of course, 'sub it():lvalue{$_}' gets you *most* of the benefit.
--
The complex-type shall be a simple-type. ISO 10206:1991 (Extended Pascal)
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 06:58:50PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
Of course, 'sub it():lvalue{$_}' gets you *most* of the benefit.
^^
You see that word? You know what it means?
I want to buy the code, as listed in the code table, not the
On Mon, May 21, 2001 at 08:57:45AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
So far all I can think of for variable properties are actually compile time
properties like constant etc.
So I am left wondering how much of an issue this really will be ?
The beautiful and the horrible thing about Perl is that
On Sun, May 20, 2001 at 01:09:28AM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
This also reads like English:
Is foo constant?
Until you realise that in order to actually use it sensibly, you'll
have to say something like
if (is $foo constant)
instead of (as I would prefer)
if ($foo is constant)
--
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:29:11PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
Therefore, if it isn't a back-end and it isn't a front-end, what is it?!
Both!
Can someone say what it is?
OK. Most languages out there are separate from their implementation. For C,
you have an ANSI specification that
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:40:19AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
mios @ventanas son inmutables;
It's all part of the secret plan to make Perl *even more* unmaintainable. :)
--
CLUELESSNESS:
There are No Stupid Questions,
But There Are a LOT of Inquisitive Idiots
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 09:24:33AM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote:
Will ebonics be included in this locale thingy?
it better, or that's discrimination :|
YM that be discrimination HTH.
--
If computer science was a science, computer scientists would study what
computer systems do and draw
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:59:07PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'?
It is impossible to answer this question without knowing what you mean by the
word. Larry has seen and edited the article; is that what you mean?
What is open to debate on this?
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias
for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write
more-grammatically-correct statements such as my $var has
Colors(3). Since 'are' is being
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:49:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Looks nicer to me.
Did you know that other people might find other things nicer?
TMTOWDTI has not been ruled out for Perl 6.
--
Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely.
-- Genji
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings'
department.
Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well.
well, better in the sense that it shows off perl6's style and new features.
And is shorter
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:55:41PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
fine.. except if it was about TMTOWTDI, both could have been included...
There's more than one way not to do it, too. :)
--
Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same
entropy to create bugs instead?
--
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-)
Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6 interpreter in
Perl 5 for testing. We have the variable semantics sorted out, but properties
might
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:25:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
There must be some reason why a language like Sather isn't more popular.
I think that iters are part of the problem.
That smacks of the Politician's Syllogism:
Something is wrong.
This is something.
Therefore this is
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:38:31PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
What is the meaning of the following four expressions in Perl6?
@bar[$foo];
%bar{$foo};
@bar{$foo};
%bar[$foo];
$bar[$foo];
$bar{$foo};
It's really, really easy. Just
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:50:17PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Pardon my indelicacy, but - Screw how it looks in Perl5.
I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5
terms) what it will *mean*.
--
Use an accordion. Go to jail.
-- KFOG, San Francisco
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:19:10AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
to be such that the writing of the Perl 5 to 6 translator utility is
still feasable.
If you're at TPC this year, you'll hear me how explain how translators
*far* weirder than simply Perl 5 to Perl 6 are possible. :)
Briefly: We
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 05:56:41PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
People are *very much* familiar with reading a line from a file. People
may steer clear from a language because it deeply relies on exotic stuff
like iterators.
...
What you could do, is treat an iterator as something similar to
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 08:40:52AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dave Mitchell writes:
: Briefly: We want the Perl 6 runtime to be an equivalent of the Microsoft
: CLR, so that if you can somehow get bytecode onto it - from whatever
: language - you can run it. So we've got some bytecode that
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:51:25PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
I'll say it again for the l^W^W^W - arrays and hashes are conceptually
very different beasts.
strings, integers, longs, and floats are conceptually very different beasts.
No, not really. Integers, longs and floats are all
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0700, David Goehrig wrote:
Some of us are are talking that way because we already
beleive it. You can't make the transition from Attic
Greek to Koine without changing how people fundamentally
view their language.
Oh, hyperbole!
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 08:22:17PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
Oh, hyperbole! It's more like going from Katharevousa to Demotic.
(To pre-empt Philip Newton: Yes, I know, but going the other way wouldn't
have sounded like an advancement.)
--
An algorithm must be seen to be believed
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
Several perl ports, and at least one book, use a shiny ball as a
symbol.
It took me a bit of thinking before I realized what this shiny ball
represents. Odd.
Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a grain
of
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
oyster/clam/mussel shell with association to the Perl language. The first
thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
is.
I think all it would demonstrate is how flawed the copyright system is.
But
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:51:14AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
by the semantics of its indexing.
Bah. You should try teaching this stuff! :)
A scalar's a thing. An array's a line of things. A hash is a bag of
pairs of things.
All
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
my $foo;
my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
I tried working on a pythonish module built around
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
A scalar's a thing.
Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Indeed, hashes have scalar keys. Did you not realise that I conveyed
the same information in amazingly less confusing terminology?
Again
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:32:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
a syntactic loop control iterator object
I surely hope you're joking.
--
I respect faith, but doubt is what gives you an education.
-- Wilson Mizner
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:34:25PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
the guy who wants to know why Cnext FOO looks like
a method call
It doesn't, any more than next FOO looks like a method call
in Perl 5 right now.
--
I'm a person, not a piece of property.
Happily, I'm both!
- Lionel and
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:47:19PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Not that there are any such people. Yet.
Indeed. And I suspect that the first Perl 6 programmers are Perl 5
programmers, who know damned well what next FOO means.
--
Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God.
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:34:25PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Nothing changes at the syntactic level.
Then I call Occam's Razor. Perl is supposed to be easy, no?
--
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing
what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:59:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Perl is a highly dynamic language
An object with exactly one and only one method doesn't sound that
dynamic to me.
--
Can you sum up plan 9 in layman's terms?
It does everything Unix does only less reliably - kt
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:59:09PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
It's also supposed to have an implementation.
I think those of us who are actually likely to write a single line of code or
more should be concerned with that, thank you.
--
[It is] best to confuse only one issue at a time.
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 03:00:51PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Bit of a digression; but, the dynamicity of a language is in
no way implicated by the number of methods in one build-in
class. (Besides, this class will have at least three.)
Ooh, at least three. Again, why special-case a class
[Tom's away at the moment, I'm filling in until he gets back.]
--
Asynchronous inputs are at the root of our race problems.
-- D. Winker and F. Prosser
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 12:58:24PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps Perl 6 will have ordinary blocks that can function as continuations
to the surrounding list context.
OK, now you've broken my brain. Can you give me an example that is i) useful
and ii) reasonably obvious to the untrained
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:11:52PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Can you give me an example ...
Rather than head off down this time-wasting tangent yet again,
That smacks of avoiding the question.
Again, do you have a useful example?
--
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:08:58PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = ({scalar each %some_tied_hash});
with the function being called only when you access a particular element?
I'm still confused. Firstly, this doesn't involve first-order blocks, which
was kinda what the entire question
Old stuff becomes relevant again...
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perl 5 Porters)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 16:32:29 -0700
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: According to Larry
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:07:50AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Isn't the functional definition of a sub
just another one of its attributes, anyway?
Oh my. Form 1, Content 0.
--
An ASCII character walks into a bar and orders a double. Having a bad
day? asks the barman. Yeah, I have a parity
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:27:52PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I'm not against a cleaner way to do qw() in principle, but I
definitely think is not it for a lot of reasons (glob, readline,
can't use =, iterators, ...)
Sheesh. Yes, those would be problems with using in Perl 5.
However, we
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:43:56PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
To quote you:
: http://dev.perl.org/rfc/28.pod
I'm not trying to be a jerk at all, but I think at times we're losing
sight of the above.
I hope not, since it was primarily written with you in mind. :)
--
He was a modest,
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:35:53PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Yep... particularly considering something neat like
keys(%a) = @b;
See my earlier comments on lvalue operators. I *hope* lvalues will be
a lot more flexible in Perl 6. :)
--
Be not anxious about what you have, but about what
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:14:23PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
It strikes me as counterproductive to say, Oh, that's ALREADY been
decided (with the distinct undertone of by the way please note
how out of touch you are), or That's fine but we're not designing
Perl 5 here (with the apparent
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 05:47:59PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
And so there's a bit of a three-dimensional Rubik's Cube
game here to try and rejigger the use of the keyboard to make the
language more efficient and productive and maybe even clean out
some of the accumulated crud out there.
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 01:10:52PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
This problem already exists to some degree in Perl 5. Stuff like isa() and
can() is already squatting in the lowercase user method namespace. But I
have a feeling that properties will multiply a lot faster than UNIVERSAL
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 04:10:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Rocco Caputo wrote:
$thing's veracity is true.
What about just
$thing is;
Existence is not the same as essence.
--
Triage your efforts, y'know?
- Thorfinn
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
the less pleasant looking bits? $foo1 (where and are the double
angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
characters
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
: while ($STDIN) { ... }
I'm wondering what this will do?
$thingy = $STDIN;
This seems to have two possibilities:
1. Make a copy of $STDIN
This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
just like
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:34:24PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
@things = one two three four five;
_is_ currently a syntax error. In my mind. Not in my 5.005_03.
however, where it appears to behave just like qw does,
except that it does interpolation, which qw does not.
And shell
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 11:13:40AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
$STDIN.next is the current plan.
Ah, OK. Crystal ball was a bit cloudy there.
--
Putting heated bricks close to the news.admin.net-abuse.* groups.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 05:06:03PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
OReilly::Policy is (or might be) still general before
specific. OReilly::* might be a whole family of site-
specific modules.
Policy::* is *guaranteed* to be a large family of site-specific modules,
hopefully even larger than the
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
messages not unlike:
foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and 10.0.16: see the LRM.
Ever used the Mac C compiler?
--
Language shapes
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:59:54PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Doesn't ~ look like a piece of string to you? :-)
It looks like a bitwise op to me, personally.
That's because every time you've used it in Perl, it's been a bitwise
op. Sapir-Whorf, and all that.
--
So what if I have a fertile
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:38:50PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
IMHO, . can DWIM in most cases even if it's both object deref _and_
concat--without paying any attention to whitespace.
Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* this language.
--
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tell
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:33:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* this language.
Then I guess that either space sensitive '.' is the answer
Sorry. I'll try it again.
SPACE SENSITIVE and SOME OF US HAVE TO TEACH IT. Do you understand yet?
Are you *really*
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:31:44PM +0200, Henrik Tougaard wrote:
On my keyboard '~' is 3 keystrokes - and rather complicated ones
at that:
Then maybe ~ isn't best.
Please don't use the keypresscount as an argument.
Why not? We're making easy things easy, remember.
--
Rule 3: If the
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 03:26:04PM +0200, Henrik Tougaard wrote:
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:31:44PM +0200, Henrik Tougaard wrote:
Please don't use the keypresscount as an argument.
Why not? We're making easy things easy, remember.
Because
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:38:58AM -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
Well, right now in Perl, an object *is* a reference.
No. An object is a referent. Two blessed references can refer to the
same data; however, that's only one object.
--
teco /dev/audio
- Ignatios Souvatzis
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 11:42:00AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
THESE ARE NOT THE SAME TIRED ARGUMENTS!
Ooh, different tired arguments!
$string3 = $string1 . $string2;
$string3 = $string1 + $string2;
That's now *five* characters required to perform a very common operation.
Rather than
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 02:01:11AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
If you're dead-set on reassigning ., please consider leaving it at
that, rather than juggling all the other operators around.
Don't forget that binary ~ doesn't currently exist, so this is adding
syntax rather than reassigning it.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:49:36PM +0200, Dav?? Helgason wrote:
This wouldn't mean that anyone is thinking of getting us object
dot-syntax, now would it?
whistle
After giving it a thought, it seems that it can _mostly_ be
disambiguated from the concatenation operator. Whatever mostly
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:02:50PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
$a = $b ~ $c; # Mmm!
Oops. I really can't claim the credit for that one; I seem to have been
subconsciously influenced by one of Larry's previous musings.
--
Pretty, smart, sane:Pick two.
- Ron Echeverri
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
One interesting suggestion was to have it as a shorthand for assertion:
sub foo {
(@_ 0)!;
...
}
(Or even have ! be a valid statement terminator, so (@_0)! would work.)
Or you could have it doing
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:48:53AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Perl: Snobol with embedded gravel.
$a = $b $c;
*snort*
Actually, I'd rather like that to be equivalent to
$a = $c-$b;
--
Complete the following sentence: People *ought* to weigh bricks, cats
and cinnamon in the same units
201 - 300 of 416 matches
Mail list logo
