At 2:26 PM +0100 4/26/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
precedence. What do you do if you don't think that that's enough
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:33:06AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:26 PM +0100 4/26/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
This is now extensible to any number of precedence levels, and you can
now use simple string comparison to compare any two precedences. It even
short circuits the comparison as soon as it finds a character that
differs.
Gee, maybe I should patent this.
Too late. Amazon has already
At 5:05 PM +0100 4/26/02, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:33:06AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 2:26 PM +0100 4/26/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
OK, but that limits you
Tim Bunce writes:
: For perl at least I thought Larry has said that you'll be able to
: create new ops but only give them the same precedence as any one
: of the existing ops.
Close, but not quite. What I think I said was that you can't specify
a raw precedence--you can only specify a
At 09:45 AM 04-26-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Tim Bunce writes:
: For perl at least I thought Larry has said that you'll be able to
: create new ops but only give them the same precedence as any one
: of the existing ops.
Close, but not quite. What I think I said was that you can't specify
a
Buddha Buck writes:
: So you'd have something like:
:
: sub operator:mult($a, $b) is looser('*') is inline {...}
: sub operator:add($a, $b) is tighter(+) is inline {...}
: sub operator:div($a,$b) is looser(/) is inline {...}
:
: assuming default Perl5 precedences for *, *, and / you would have
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Why not use a 16 bit int and specify that languages should use
: default precedence levels spread through the range but keeping the
: bottom 8 bits all zero. That gives 255 levels between '3' and '4'.
: Seems like enough to me!
:
: Floating point
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 19:22, Larry Wall wrote:
Perl 6 will try to avoid synonyms but make it easy to declare them. At
worst it would be something like:
my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is inline { $a but $b }
I see your point, and it makes sense, but how will precedence work? What
would
Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 19:22, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Perl 6 will try to avoid synonyms but make it easy to declare them. At
: worst it would be something like:
:
: my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is inline { $a but $b }
:
: I see your point, and it makes sense, but
At 08:58 AM 04-23-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Precedence is set with the like' property:
my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is like(but) is inline { $a but $b }
sub operator:also ($a,$b) is like(and) is inline { $a and $b }
OK, but that limits you to the, um, 24 standard levels of
In reply to Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 08:58 AM 04-23-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Precedence is set with the like' property:
my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is like(but) is inline { $a but $b
}
sub operator:also ($a,$b) is like(and) is inline { $a and $b }
OK, but that
At 01:12 PM 04-23-2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
24 levels of precedence should be enough, else you can always resort to
parens.
I would have agreed, except that I would have also said that the 14
precedence levels of C should be enough as well -- yet we seem to have
discovered uses
Buddha Buck writes:
: At 08:58 AM 04-23-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Precedence is set with the like' property:
:
: my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is like(but) is inline { $a but $b }
: sub operator:also ($a,$b) is like(and) is inline { $a and $b }
:
: OK, but that limits you to the,
At 12:36 PM -0400 4/23/02, Buddha Buck wrote:
At 08:58 AM 04-23-2002 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Precedence is set with the like' property:
my sub operator:now ($a,$b) is like(but) is inline { $a but $b }
sub operator:also ($a,$b) is like(and) is inline { $a and $b }
OK, but that limits
On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 10:59, Trey Harris wrote:
0 has true
my first reaction would be, huh? Since when?
Dare I say... now? ;-)
Sorry, someone had to say it.
Personally, even though it sucks up namespace, I think what we're seeing
here is a need for more than one keyword that are
Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 10:59, Trey Harris wrote:
:
: 0 has true
:
: my first reaction would be, huh? Since when?
:
: Dare I say... now? ;-)
:
: Sorry, someone had to say it.
:
: Personally, even though it sucks up namespace, I think what we're seeing
: here is a
Everyone I've ever talked to about it agrees that defining things to be a
negative is just a bad idea. Consider:
if (gronk) do_this();
else do_that();
versus
if (not_gronk) do_that();
else do_this();
It is one of the standard refactoring tricks to replace the second one
with the first. The
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
Please don't use 'but' to associate runtime properties to things.
Please call it 'has'.
How about both?
Luke
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
Everyone I've ever talked to about it agrees that defining things to be a
negative is just a bad idea. Consider:
if (gronk) do_this();
else do_that();
versus
if (not_gronk) do_that();
else do_this();
But look how well Cunless reads
In a message dated Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel S. Wilkerson writes:
It is one of the standard refactoring tricks to replace the second one
with the first. The word has is in the positive, whereas but is a
negative, but it assigns a positive, even more confusing.
but isn't a negative, not
Larry,
Please don't use 'but' to associate runtime properties to things.
Please call it 'has'.
First, but is just strange. I have a thing and I want to tell you it is
red, so I say 'but'. Huh?
Using 'has' makes a nice parallel with 'is' for compile time properties:
What you are is
I agree 'but' seems a tad odd, and I like the elegance of your
suggestion at first sight. However...
First, but is just strange. I have a thing and I want to tell you it
is
red, so I say 'but'. Huh?
banana but red;
foo but false;
According to Larry, run time properties will most
On 4/20/02 3:02 PM, Me [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
banana now red;
foo now false;
banana now foo;
banana now tainted;
I read 'now' as somewhat suggestive of changing something.
I actually rather like this keyword. It not only suggests that something has
changed, but that it has
24 matches
Mail list logo
