On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:07:13PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
The headers I received make no mention of character set - does your mailer
mark the message in any way? If not, then STMP will assume it's good old
7 bit
At 7:13 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
Do we at least all agree that it would be a good thing if Unicode were
the default character set for everything, everywhere? That is,
editors, xterms, keyboards, etc?
No. No, we don't.
--
Dan
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:59:57AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:13 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
Do we at least all agree that it would be a good thing if Unicode were
the default character set for everything, everywhere? That is,
editors, xterms, keyboards, etc?
No. No, we
--- David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 04:14:20PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:07:13PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
The headers I received make no mention of character set - does
your mailer
mark the message in any way? If not,
* David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-01-17 19:29:25]:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:59:57AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:13 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
Do we at least all agree that it would be a good thing if Unicode were
the default character set for everything, everywhere?
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:59:57AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:13 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
Do we at least all agree that it would be a good thing if Unicode were
the default character set for everything, everywhere? That is,
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 12:19:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:59:57AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 7:13 AM -0800 1/17/03, David Storrs wrote:
Do we at least all agree that it would be a good thing if Unicode were
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 10:50:57PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:05 AM + 1/16/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very much like the good old days of trigraphs. But on the
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/16/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And keyboards, don't forget keyboards. These pesky primitive ones we
have now would require a lot of shift-control-alt-meta-cokebottle key
sequences...
And vt100 consoles ! There are still sysadmins that struggle with a buggy
perl script, having
On 2003-01-16 at 11:41:56, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And keyboards, don't forget keyboards. These pesky primitive ones we
have now would require a lot of shift-control-alt-meta-cokebottle key
sequences...
Unicode may have thousands of characters, but how many of them do you
think you'll use often
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 8:08 AM -0800 1/16/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may
well
be
considered reasonable thing
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
It's very
Mr. Nobody:
# --- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# It's very much like the good old days of trigraphs. But on the plus
# side, once all the losers get their fonts/xterms/editors
# up-to-speed
# on extended character sets, the trigraphs will die a
# forgotten death.
#
# How about
--- Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody:
# --- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# It's very much like the good old days of trigraphs. But on the plus
# side, once all the losers get their fonts/xterms/editors
# up-to-speed
# on extended character sets, the trigraphs
On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 08:57 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2003-01-16 at 11:41:56, Dan Sugalski wrote:
And keyboards, don't forget keyboards. These pesky primitive ones we
have now would require a lot of shift-control-alt-meta-cokebottle key
sequences...
Unicode may have thousands of
Glad to see someone heeded that warning about unrecognizable sarcasm;
no danger of misinterpretation here . . . :)
On 2003-01-16 at 10:01:04, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* planning on making
many, many Unicode synonyms, to make my code shorter and more
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* planning on making
many, many Unicode synonyms, to make my code shorter and more readable.
For example, Cfor is too long, so I want to just make it curly-f,
(Æ). And Cwhen is even longer, so I'm
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but *I'm* planning on making
many, many Unicode synonyms, to make my code shorter and more readable.
For example, Cfor is too long, so I want to just make it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes:
Argh, I just realized the original was probably sarcastic too. Now I look
like an idiot. Well, moreso than before.
There has been more than a touch of sarcasm about nearly every post in
this thread in the last two days.
--
So i get the chance to reread
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may
well
be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds
Whoever is working for qlcomm.com tech support and subscribed from work
should probably unsubscribe and use a personal account, unless your
boss wants 20+ messages per day coming in to your corporate mailbox.
--- Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Customer,
Your query has been
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may
well
[Note: I originally sent this to Mr. Nobody alone, but that wasn't my
intent. I'm re-sending it here, where I wanted it to go in the first
place. -- bmb]
Mr. Nobody wrote:
trigraphs are actually better, even if you are unicode capable. ~ is
far
easier to type than ctrl-u-15F9E2A01 or
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 04:59:43PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Buddha Buck wrote:
Maybe, maybe not On my machine right now, it is very easy for me to
type various accented letters, like a, e, etc, making words like resume
(or is that resume) nearly as fast to type as the non-accented
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 10:07:13PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
The headers I received make no mention of character set - does your mailer
mark the message in any way? If not, then STMP will assume it's good old
7 bit ASCII
Thus we are back to using uuencode :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
On 2003-01-16 at 16:42:15, Buddha Buck wrote:
[Note: I originally sent this to Mr. Nobody alone, but that wasn't my
intent. I'm re-sending it here, where I wanted it to go in the first
place. -- bmb]
This came in with a content type text/plain, charset=us-ascii.
US-ASCII is by definition 7
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
--
A witty saying means nothing. -Voltaire
At 12:05 AM + 1/16/03, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes:
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing
Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs.
I was shooting for the good old days of sarcasm that people
On Friday, January 10, 2003, 9:05:42 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Universe 2 (pro-unicode): If we had a Unicode 'squiggly arrow' operator,
then however it looks on everybody's display, it ought to at least look like
some kind of squiggly arrow.
U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote:
U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow would
seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely
aliases of the true symbols?
If we go this route, I would suggest that we use
--- David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 11:50:14AM +, Richard J Cox wrote:
U+21DC Leftwards Squiggle Arrow and U+21DE Rightwards Squiggle Arrow
would
seem to fit the bill rather well maybe the ascii ~ and ~ are merely
aliases of the true symbols?
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using
unicode operators for this function if we hadn't already talked about
unicode
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be bringing up using
unicode operators for this
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion. We wouldn't be
--- Thom Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
OK, now I think I know how _you_ would vote on the subject of Unicode
operators. But would
At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very, very, very,
very,
very, very, very, very, very, very bad idea.
We've already had this discussion.
--- Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:52 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
Unicode operators in the core are a very, very, very, very,
very,
very,
At 11:19 AM -0800 1/13/03, Austin Hastings wrote:
So the real question should be What kind of upgrade path are we
providing for converting these tired old multigraphs into single
uniglyphs?
Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be
considered reasonable thing, though
Mr. Nobody wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
--- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've already had this discussion.
So if we already talked about why they're such a terrible idea,
why are people still proposing them for other
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:12:12 +, Thom Boyer wrote:
'Course, then I've gotta explain why
$x = 7 ~ 63;
doesn't evaluate to 9
Surely because you haven't yet overloaded gozinta for the Number class!
-- c
On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 09:56 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Just out of curiosity, how did you measure that? ;-)
Well, obviously, I used the Symbol::Readability module:
module Symbol::Readability;
sub delta_r(Str $a, Str $a) returns Int is exported {
return sum
print sort { ... } ~ mymethod(42) ~ @b;
call sort on what comezouta calling mymethod(42) on what comezouta @b.
I think. Indirect objects are still somewhat confusing. :)
If I'm reading the info right on ~, then we want to make it clear
that you _don't_ put it between print and stuff you
Andy Wardley wrote:
s/~=/=~/
Indeed. And that's precisely why we're changing it to ~~ in Perl 6. ;-)
The first 3 all relate to the familiar concept of 'minus', or more
precisely a delta between two values. The last uses '-' as 'dash',
another familiar concept which doesn't grate against
Mr. Nobody wrote:
I find the normal function call and assignment far more readable than using
some weird ugly operator.
and later:
That's going to be just plain confusing. Arguments to functions are supposed
to be on the right. And what's up with using them for assignment? That's
making them
--- attriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone explain how to know what's the indirect object? (who
knew
the sentence diagramming would be USEFUL!!)
Short version:
If there's two people in the sentence, the verb-ee is either the direct
or indirect object. If there's two people and a
Damian Conway said:
Andy Wardley wrote:
The arrow is a special case. I don't read that first character
as '-', I think of the operator as one. I guess the visual cue forces
me to see it like that.
I'm suggesting that ~ and ~ will be the same.
I think that in part this may depend on the
On Friday 10 January 2003 11:42 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
Damian Conway said:
Andy Wardley wrote:
The arrow is a special case. I don't read that first character
as '-', I think of the operator as one. I guess the visual cue forces
me to see it like that.
I'm suggesting that ~ and ~
Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I later saw it using mutt in an xterm, the tilde was at the top of
the character, where I was more used to seeing it and it didn't look like
an arrow any more, nor did it look very good to me.
Well, at least now I understand why some people didn't see
Andrew Rodland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're missing the most important part!
I propose that these operators should be named gozinta ( ~)
and comezouta ( ~ ), just so that we can say that perl has them. Not to
mention that the names work pretty well, for me.
Here, here! All in favor,
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:12:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- attriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could someone explain how to know what's the indirect object? (who
knew
the sentence diagramming would be USEFUL!!)
Short version:
If there's two people in the
Paul Johnson wrote:
When I later saw it using mutt in an xterm, the tilde was at the top of
the character, where I was more used to seeing it and it didn't look like
an arrow any more, nor did it look very good to me.
Ah yes, that's the problem. On all my fonts, the tilde appears at
the top
I don't know about *your* font, but in mine the ~ and ~ versions are
at least twice as readable as the | and | ones.
Just out of curiosity, how did you measure that? ;-)
Well, obviously, I used the Symbol::Readability module:
module Symbol::Readability;
sub delta_r(Str $a, Str $a) returns
Philip Hellyer wrote:
Damian's proposal didn't say anything about array params. If I understood
him correctly, then this should print FOO on standard out:
my $foo = FOO;
$foo ~ print;
Correct.
The opposite 'squiggly arrow' fiddles the indirect object, so perhaps this
would print
Jonathan Scott Duff suggested:
Oh, then we just need a syntax to split the streams. ... I know!
@list ~| grep /bad!/ ~ @throw ~| grep /good/ ~ @keep;
Unfortunately, that's already taken (it's the bitwise-OR-on-a-string operator).
Fortunately that doesn't matter, since no extra binary
frederic fabbro wrote:
I'm not even sure how that would parse, though that:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
would go like:
( @keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ) ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
Correct, if ~ is indeed slightly higher precedence than ~
which is probably not
Andy Wardley wrote:
I also think this is semantically fabulous but syntactically slightly
dubious. '~' reads 'match' in my book,
Really? We don't have any trouble in Perl 5 with an = character
being used in various unrelated operators:
== comparison
=assignment
~= match
In a message dated Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Damian Conway writes:
One *might* argue that ~ ought to be of higher precedence than ~
(i.e. that invocants ought to be bound ahead of other arguments).
If so, then:
$foo ~ print ~ $*STDERR
is really:
$foo ~ print $*STDERR:
is really:
Damian Conway wrote:
Really? We don't have any trouble in Perl 5 with an = character
being used in various unrelated operators:
== comparison
=assignment
~= match
s/~=/=~/
= comma
= less than or equal to
But these are all roughly related to the concept
Mr. Nobody wrote:
I don't like either of these operators. What's wrong with
@out = sort map {...} grep {...} @a
?
For a start, if these functions were to become (only) methods in Perl 6,
it would have to be:
@out = sort map grep @a: {...} : {...} :;
And even if we do have
I'm just suggesting the same for the ~ character:
~~ smart-match
~concatenate
~| stringy bitwise OR
~ append args
~ invocate
This is where I get lost. I see 4 different concepts being overloaded
onto '~'.
In the first it indicates 'match' just as it
Damian Conway writes:
Unary ~ would (by analogy to unary dot) append the current topic to the
argument list of its operand.
Thus, your examples become simply:
given @list {
~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
~ grep /good/ ~ @keep;
}
And:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody wrote:
I don't like either of these operators. What's wrong with
@out = sort map {...} grep {...} @a
?
For a start, if these functions were to become (only) methods in Perl 6,
it would have to be:
@out = sort
Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort ~ @out;
That's going to be just plain confusing. Arguments to functions are
supposed
to be on the right. And what's up with using them for assignment? That's
making
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 11:01:51AM -0700, Thom Boyer wrote:
Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3) Do you care about readability at all? It seems to me that ~ and ~
have no use except making perl 6 uglier and more complicated than it already
is.
I think ~ and ~ look pretty nice. They read
--- Thom Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort ~ @out;
That's going to be just plain confusing. Arguments to functions are
supposed
to be on the right. And what's up
--- Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Thom Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mr. Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort ~ @out;
That's going to be just plain confusing. Arguments to functions
are
Mr. Nobody:
# It's not letting you do anything that you couldn't do before
# with normal function calls and assignment.
We're writing a useful language, not a Turing machine.
# I see it as making a bad idea even worse. I've never liked
# having one thing doing multiple completely different and
On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 03:05 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
I don't know about *your* font, but in mine the ~ and ~ versions are
at least twice as readable as the | and | ones.
Just out of curiosity, how did you measure that? ;-)
David
--
David Wheeler
On Thursday 09 January 2003 01:01 pm, Thom Boyer wrote:
If you read ~ and ~ as stuff this thingy into that doohicky, assignment
makes perfect sense. They are plumbing connectors: sometimes they connect
the water softener to the water heater (one device to another), and
sometimes they connect
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:14:10 +0800
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I suggest that an alternative solution might be the following:
Suppose Perl 6 had two new very low precedence operators: ~ and ~
(a.k.a. bind rightwards and bind leftwards)
Suppose ~ takes
Luke Palmer wrote:
I think this is a big step towards readability. It allows you to put
whatever part of the expression wherever you want (reminiscent of
Latin);
You didn't think Perligata was just for *fun*, did you? ;-)
It's a shame ~ is ambiguous. It's a lexical ambiguity, which can be
# Damian Conway wrote:
# @out = sort ~ map {...} ~ grep {...} ~ @a;
#
# Or, under a special rule for variables on the LHS:
#
# @out ~ sort ~ map {...} ~ grep {...} ~ @a;
Hello,
Can one see it as a shell redirection/pipe? This may sound funny,
but is the following
frederic fabbro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can one see it as a shell redirection/pipe? This may sound funny,
but is the following ok?
@b ~ @a ~ @c; # @c = @b = @a;
(@b ~ @a) ~ @c; # same order i guess
so one can also:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~
Can I suggest that an alternative solution might be the following:
Suppose Perl 6 had two new very low precedence operators: ~ and ~
(a.k.a. bind rightwards and bind leftwards)
@out = @a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort;
@out = sort ~ map {...} ~ grep {...} ~ @a;
Atriel:
Damian:
Can I suggest that an alternative solution might be the following:
Suppose Perl 6 had two new very low precedence operators: ~ and ~
(a.k.a. bind rightwards and bind leftwards)
@out = @a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort;
@out = sort ~ map {...} ~ grep
(b) Can ~ and ~ be used at the same time?
I'm not entirely sure of what functions take two array params
meaningfully, but could we do:
Damian's proposal didn't say anything about array params. If I
understood him correctly, then this should print FOO on standard out:
DOH! All the examples
# Rafael Garcia-Suarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
# frederic fabbro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# so one can also:
# @keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
#
# is this if valid too?
# @b ~ @a ~ @c; # push @a, @b, @c;
# or:@b, @c ~ push @a;
#
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@out = @a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort;
...
@out ~ sort ~ map {...} ~ grep {...} ~ @a;
That way, everything is still a method call, the ultra-low precedence
of
~ and ~ eliminate the need for parens, and (best of all)
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:14:06PM +0100, frederic fabbro wrote:
I'm not even sure how that would parse, though that:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
would go like:
( @keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ) ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
which is probably not what i wanted...
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 08:31:51AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@out = @a ~ grep {...} ~ map {...} ~ sort;
...
@out ~ sort ~ map {...} ~ grep {...} ~ @a;
For the record, I think this is great.
Brilliant! Keep
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:30:51 -0500 (EST)
From: attriel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Note 1) This is the second time I'm typing this
Note 2)
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 10:45:37 -0600
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Followup-To: frederic fabbro [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
Luke Palmer wrote:
I would, from the descriptions, imagine that:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
Would parse as:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list;
@list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
Nope. ~ and ~ only *rearrange* arguments, so if you only type @list
once, you can only do things
--- attriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not even sure how that would parse, though that:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
would go like:
( @keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ) ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
which is probably not what i wanted...
I would, from the
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not necessarily. ~ will necessarily need to be right-associative,
while ~ left, however.
Not sure if you aren't getting this backwards, but anyway I often find
myself confused with right and left.
It would be logical to give them the same
precedence,
Jonathan Scott Duff:
# And that, of course, leads us to sort of unzip were mutual
# exclusion is not a requisite:
#
# @list ~| grep length == 1 ~ @onecharthings
# ~| grep [0..29] ~ @numberslessthan30
# ~| grep /^\w+$/ ~ @words
# ~| grep $_%2==0 ~
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 08:14 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
Just when you thougth it was safe to go back on the mailing list,
Damian attempts to resurrect a dead can of worms:
And all because Mike Lazzaro wrote:
OK, but let it be known that the resulting megathread is now _your_
fault,
--- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 05:14:06PM +0100, frederic fabbro wrote:
I'm not even sure how that would parse, though that:
@keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ~ grep /bad!/ ~ @throw;
would go like:
( @keep ~ grep /good/ ~ @list ) ~ grep /bad!/ ~
-Original Message-
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually I don't think you can define a grammar where two operators have
the same precedence but different associativity. Be it a pure BNF
grammar, or a classical yacc specification (using the %left and %right
Damian Conway wrote:
[...] ~ and ~
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I too think this idea is fabulous. You are my hero.
I also think this is semantically fabulous but syntactically slightly
dubious. '~' reads 'match' in my book, so I'm reading the operators
as 'match left' and 'match right'. Or
Actually I don't think you can define a grammar where two operators have
the same precedence but different associativity. Be it a pure BNF
grammar, or a classical yacc specification (using the %left and %right
declarations).
But that would mean only perl6 could pass perl6, which isn't much
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
and similarly,
$a ~ ...;
is equivalent to
$a = ...;
But with the different precedence. At last, I can assign from a list without
using parentheses:
@a = 1, 2, 3; # newbie error
@a ~ 1, 2, 3; #
Nicholas Clark wrote in perl.perl6.language :
Actually I don't think you can define a grammar where two operators have
the same precedence but different associativity. Be it a pure BNF
grammar, or a classical yacc specification (using the %left and %right
declarations).
But that would mean
Dave Whipp wrote in perl.perl6.language :
But with the different precedence. At last, I can assign from a list without
using parentheses:
@a = 1, 2, 3; # newbie error
@a ~ 1, 2, 3; # would work
or :
@a ~ 1 ~ 2 ~ 3;
or :
1, 2, 3 ~ @a;
which would be also written as :
3 ~ 2 ~
Dave Whipp wrote:
Something else springs to mind. Consider the Cfor syntax:
for 1,2,3 ~ foo - $a { ... }
Is there any way we could unify these two operators without creating
ambiguities? If we
could, then using straight arrows would be nicer to type than the squiggly
ones.
I think I see
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 12:14:10 +0800
From: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can I suggest that an alternative solution might be the following:
Suppose Perl 6 had two new very low precedence operators: ~ and ~
(a.k.a. bind
Trey Harris wrote:
I love this.
And any class could override the ~ operator, right?
Right.
I suppose it could be done like arithmetic
overloading, if you define both ~ (I'm being pointed at from the right)
and ~ (I'm being pointed at from the left) in your class then Perl will
use
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
