> As a third possibility, could we huffman-code "do nothing" clauses by
> leaving out the appropriate argument? That is:
>
> while $x-- && some_condition($x);
That's a bit too short for my liking: it is likely to lead to the
traditional C undetectable bug when you write
while $x-- && some_cond
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:19:03PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: As a third possibility, could we huffman-code "do nothing" clauses by
: leaving out the appropriate argument? That is:
:
: while $x-- && some_condition($x);
:
: or
:
: loop ( ; some_condition($x) ; $x--);
We could, except tha
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:43:23AM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >Well, I assume that the do-nothing sub is assigned into the variable, and
> >gets re-evaluated each time the variable is use. Which would mean that
> >you'd
> >get a new (different) empty hash each time. Wh
HaloO,
Nicholas Clark wrote:
Well, I assume that the do-nothing sub is assigned into the variable, and
gets re-evaluated each time the variable is use. Which would mean that you'd
get a new (different) empty hash each time. Whereas an empty hash constructor
gives you a hash reference to keep. (n
Jonathan Lang:
> could we huffman-code "do nothing" clauses by
> leaving out the appropriate argument?
>
> while $x-- && some_condition($x);
Heheh, I often code like that, and then silence the complaint by adding
the {}.
--
Grtz, Ruud
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:53:39PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
> >an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
> >common.
>
> Ups, is that distinction needed eagerly? Wouldn't the ret
Luke Palmer wrote:
> Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
> an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
> common.
>
> However, what do we do about:
>
>while $x-- && some_condition($x) {}
>
> Here, while is being passed a hash, not a do-nothin
> -Original Message-
> From: Austin Frank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:58 AM
> To: Luke Palmer
> Cc: perl6language,
> Subject: Re: Problem with dwimmery
> Do we still have a yada yada yada? Could it be used to differentiate
&g
At 3:40 PM +0100 12/22/05, Michele Dondi wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
On a separate but related matter, I'm in the position of wanting to
do something unusual, which is create a data file format whose
content is executable perl code that defines a data structure, a
hash of
TSa skribis 2005-12-22 17:27 (+0100):
> >$foo(); # It was a sub
> The postfix () is valid syntax irrespective of the former
> assignment, right?
Valid syntax, sure, but it doesn't necessarily do something terribly
useful.
>
> >my $foo = {};
> >$foo = 1; # It was a hash
> Would you
HaloO,
Juerd wrote:
I think it should be both.
So do I.
my $foo = {};
$foo(); # It was a sub
The postfix () is valid syntax irrespective of the former
assignment, right?
my $foo = {};
$foo = 1; # It was a hash
Would you expect the second line to work witout the firs
Luke Palmer wrote:
> However, what do we do about:
>
> while $x-- && some_condition($x) {}
>
> Here, while is being passed a hash, not a do-nothing code. Should we
> force people to write:
>
> while $x-- && some_condition($x) {;}
Do we still have a yada yada yada? Could it be used to d
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
On a separate but related matter, I'm in the position of wanting to do
something unusual, which is create a data file format whose content is
executable perl code that defines a data structure, a hash of whatever.
Kind of like how XML works except tha
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Juerd wrote:
while $x-- && some_condition($x) {}
Here, while is being passed a hash
Why? Doesn't while's signature specifically prescribe a sub there, and
if it does, then wouldn't it be just a bit too silly to stick to {}
being a hash?
Well, as hinted in my other ma
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, TSa wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
Hmmm, OTOH a hash is a special kind of function, so it may also be
convenient to think of { item
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-12-22 7:42 (+):
> Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
> an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
> common.
I think it should be both.
my $foo = {};
$foo(); # It was a sub
my $foo = {};
$foo =
HaloO,
Luke Palmer wrote:
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
Ups, is that distinction needed eagerly? Wouldn't the return value
of a do-nothing code return a value that when coerced into
At 7:42 AM + 12/22/05, Luke Palmer wrote:
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
However, what do we do about:
while $x-- && some_condition($x) {}
Here, while is being passed a hash,
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
However, what do we do about:
while $x-- && some_condition($x) {}
Here, while is being passed a hash, not a do-nothing code. Should we
force people t
19 matches
Mail list logo
