Re: Converting a Perl 5 pseudo-continuation to Perl 6

Hello, I'd vote for the OO-style. My reason is that the major criteria should be the reader perspective. It should be as clear as possible what's going on in the main code even if the reader doesn't know the hottest p6 tricks! What you are doing here is: two operations on the same thing (the

Re: for ... else

I vote against this proposal. More exceptional rules in a language are bad in itself. Those exceptions force people to more to learn more stuff and lead to confusion for those who don't know every detail of this language. So, there should be an important reason for that or it's a silly idea.

Re: Relief for rw/ro

PS: In between, I think 'variable' is too long, so: $code =~ s/variable/vari/g; IMHO Cvari is better than Cvar because Cvar doesn't look like a special thing, but it is. I feel that the most usual cases for read/write would be better readable with that approach. Instead of C$res=funcy($foo

Relief for rw/ro

Recently $larry asked for ideas for better naming the several states of write access. There are some tentative thoughts, I like to offer. Larry Wall wrote: That being said, in writing the Perl 6 grammar I keep running into the need for rw context variables. I'm getting tired of writing things

my $temperature is ro

# Hello @all, # I want to suggest readonly or 'is ro' declaration for variables. See: readonly $temperature = db_temperature_of( $date_time_loc); ... ## much later # It is *ensured* that $temperature is the original value from database! my $result = important_decision( $temperature); #{ It can

Re: Re: my $temperature is ro

Hello Thomas, thanks for answering. I fear the Cconstant declaration is not suitable for the purposes I'm thinking of, since it sets the value at compile time. And at compile time it can't contact a database, unfortunately. So, we need the assignment at runtime, but the sanity check

Re: my $temperature is ro

Oops, that was a timing problem. I didn't see that there were answers, sorry. Kind Regards Stefan - No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

Re: my $temperature is ro

Larry, Smylers, now I've read your answers. Larry, thanks for telling me that it is already specced. I have overlooked it, sorry. Hello Smylers, thanks for your answer, too. I'm not stucked on the form C$-name. I am happy to get the runtime readonly or the pragma. Have a nice day Stefan

Remember: Outlaw to declare a lexical twice in the same scope

Hi @larry, I want to remember to my proposal from september 2006. It targets on changing S04. The discussion is summarized on: http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2006/09/weekly_perl_6_mailing_list_sum_3.html So, please change S04 as discussed. Thanks Stefan

Outlaw to declare a lexical twice in the same scope

Hello, perhaps I've missed a discussion about it, but I can't find a reason for a (IMHO infelicitous) specification. In S04 is said: If you declare a lexical twice in the same scope, it is the same lexical I would argue for: If you declare a lexical twice in the same scope, it is an error!