On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:15:09 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
What you could do, is treat an iterator as something similar to reading
a line from a file. Tied filehandles allow something like it in Perl5.
You know, if what you say is true, I'd expect to find a module on CPAN which
turns the exotic
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 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
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Larry Wall wrote:
Dave Storrs writes:
: should stick with . Also, I'd prefer to use the 'x' operator for
: specifying multiples:
:
: @foo = $STDIN x 4;
: @foo = $STDIN x mySub;
:
: The parallel with $foo = 'bar'x2;, where bar is simply repeated
Dave Storrs writes:
: Hmmm...I see your point, but I think it depends on what you see as
: the operatee that 'x' is operating on. If it's the string(s) produced by
: , then you're certainly right. But if it is the act of iterating
: itself, then I think my suggestion is still valid. And
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Larry Wall wrote:
Dave Storrs writes:
: calling the function that produced the string, or whatever. I just think
: that we could extend 'x' to have a general repetition meaning.
I think just patching one operator from verbal status to adverbial
status is not
(apologies if this is a duplicate - I think my last post has gotten lost).
The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring that, it seeks
a new symbol for the community entirely
I'd suggest a mongoose - eats poisonous snakes for breakfast.
There's a sort of tie-in with Perl Mongers
/me likes. /me likes a lot.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Dave Hartnoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN concerns : new mascot
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Larry Wall wrote:
In this view, * and could just be two different kinds of expandable flags.
But I'm uncomfortable with that, because I'd like to be able to say
lazy_sub($STDIN, $STDIN, $STDIN, $STDIN)
to feed four lines to lazy_sub without defeating the
Dave Storrs wrote:
*4$STDIN # Next 4 lines
*$num_lines$STDIN # Numifies $num_lines, gets that many
*int rand(6)$STDIN # Gets 0-5 lines
*mySub($bar)$STDIN# mySub returns num, gets that many
Shades of printf...
--
John Porter
On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
: love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: explicit readline to a variable other than $_
It would be $FOO.next, but yes, that's the basic idea. It's possible
that iterator variables should be more
Dave Storrs writes:
: You know, it would be really cool if you specify the number of
: lines you wanted like so:
:
: $STDIN # One line
: *$STDIN# All available lines
: *4$STDIN # Next 4 lines
:
: Or even:
:
:
At 05:56 PM 5/10/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:20:52 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
: love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: explicit readline to a variable other than $_
It would be $FOO.next, but yes, that's the basic idea. It's
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
The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring that, it seeks a
new
symbol for the community entirely
I'd suggest a mongoose - eats poisonous snakes for breakfast.
There's a sort of tie-in with Perl Mongers == Perl Mongoose as well :-)
Dave.
QUOTE LARRY
Dave Storrs writes:
: You know, it would be really cool if you specify the number of
: lines you wanted like so:
:
: $STDIN # One line
: *$STDIN# All available lines
: *4$STDIN # Next 4 lines
:
: Or even:
:
:
Message-
From: RFC850 host name inserted by qmail-smtpd
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David L. Nicol
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 5:12 PM
To: Larry Wall; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN concerns : new mascot?
Larry Wall wrote:
there seems to be a shortage of three
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring that,
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
didn't do it because it would have taken $600 to prove a point.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Bart Lateur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN
/me ponders the use of a cat in that context... Furball?
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN
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
And there was me thinking the shiny ball must be a camel dropping
At 04:06 PM 5/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
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
Core Perl is probably trademarked to Sun Microsystems. ;-)
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Apoc2
At 16:17 May 7, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:14:12PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I think Uri's qh() suggestion is the cleanest:
Interesting train of thought, since one of the ideas was that qw() is
ugly and has to go. (Larry's been saying this for nearly two years now,
it's
In a fit of insanity, at 10:14 EDT Tue May 8, I wrote:
9 times out of 100, qw saves a large number of keystrokes. (The
other 1% of the time, ...
I hope it's obvious that I meant 99 times out of 100
sheepish look
--
Eric
Eric Roode writes:
: And the fact is, I've always loathed qw(), despite the fact that I
: invented it myself. :-)
: -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
:
: Well, one person's ugly is another person's joy forever.
:
: Regardless of the aesthetics of q//, qq//, qw//, et al, (and
John Porter writes:
: Pardon me if someone has already suggested this, but...
: Couldn't labels really be (aliases to) iterator objects?
: So that
: next FOO
: really *does* mean
: FOO.next
Ordinary next methods don't do a goto.
Larry
Nathan Wiger writes:
: One thing I think we should avoid is as many special cases as possible.
: This is already why people hate currently - because it does both glob()
: and readline().
:
: I would say that having history is actually a good thing. It's a
: foundation, really, since readline()
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW Please pardon my hyperbole. I don't loathe qw() so badly that I
LW want to get rid of it. I merely want to put it in the same status
LW as the other general quote operators that also have a non-general
LW pair of standard quote characters.
Lipscomb, Al writes:
: --_=_NextPart_001_01C0D71B.8F67C8EA
: Content-Type: text/plain;
: charset=iso-8859-1
:
:
:
: $$STDIN # Return one element regardless of context.
: @$STDIN # Return number of element wanted by context.
: *$STDIN # Return
Peter Scott writes:
: At 01:51 AM 5/6/01 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: The debate rages on: Is Perl Bactrian or Dromedary?
:
: It's a Dromedary, it says so in the Colophon.
:
: But maybe the symbol of Perl 6 should be a Bactrian, with the extra hump
: symbolizing the increased power.
:
: You
At 09:32 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Perl 6 might not put all the elements of @b on the stack as a temporary
list. Rather, it might just put \@b marked as expandable. (It might
also have to put some kind of copy-on-write lock on @b to keep it from
changing out from under, depending on
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 09:44:57AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
there seems to be a shortage of three-humped camels.
No wonder we're short, they're rather careless with them...
The Three-humped Camel:
An advertisement once appeared in a Welsh local paper which
read: 'Last - one three-humped camel.
Larry Wall wrote:
Ordinary next methods don't do a goto.
Well, of course, the next method of a syntactic
loop control iterator object would not be ordinary. :-)
--
John Porter
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 09:32 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Perl 6 might not put all the elements of @b on the stack as a temporary
: list. Rather, it might just put \@b marked as expandable. (It might
: also have to put some kind of copy-on-write lock on @b to keep it from
:
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
At 10:32 AM 5/8/01 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: One of the places I hope to gain some speed is in eliminating flattening
: and reconstitution of aggregate variables as much as possible. I'm hoping
: to exploit this really heavily to save both the memory for the flattened
: lists and the time it
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
a syntactic loop control iterator object
I surely hope you're joking.
Why? It sounds reasonable to me (if not necessarily
desirable). Perl is a highly dynamic language, I
think it could support this.
--
John Porter
Peter Scott wrote:
Even if it has a
fixed-length prototype, is Perl smart enough to know that it can't be
called as an object method, bypassing prototype checking?
Maybe p6 won't have that loophole.
--
John Porter
Simon Cozens writes:
: 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.
It could certainly be argued that anything you can put a label on is an
object by some definition or other. And certainly it turns
John Porter writes:
: Peter Scott wrote:
: Even if it has a
: fixed-length prototype, is Perl smart enough to know that it can't be
: called as an object method, bypassing prototype checking?
:
: Maybe p6 won't have that loophole.
It won't, if the type of the object can be determined at
At 10:57 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 10:32 AM 5/8/01 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: One of the places I hope to gain some speed is in eliminating flattening
: and reconstitution of aggregate variables as much as possible. I'm hoping
: to exploit this really heavily to save both the
At 10:32 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 09:32 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Perl 6 might not put all the elements of @b on the stack as a temporary
: list. Rather, it might just put \@b marked as expandable. (It might
: also have to put some kind of
Simon Cozens wrote:
I'm sure a pure virtual base template class sounds reasonable
to a C++ programmer, but that doesn't mean it's the clearest thing
in the world. :)
Nothing changes at the syntactic level.
FOO: while ( $cond ) {
# FOO is now (an alias to) a loop control
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
Simon Cozens wrote:
John Porter wrote:
Cnext FOO looks like a method call
It doesn't,
Oh, but it does, to the perl6 programmer who's used to
thinking
$source.next
(or its indirect object alternative,
next $source
) iterates the iterator in $source.
Not that there are any
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eric Roode [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Apoc2 - STDIN concerns
Eric Roode writes:
: And, while I'm on my soapbox here, I don't get how ... is a vast
: improvement over qw :-)
Please pardon my hyperbole. I
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
Simon Cozens writes:
: 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.
Well, it's certainly the case that
Simon Cozens wrote:
Indeed. And I suspect that the first Perl 6 programmers are Perl 5
programmers, who know damned well what next FOO means.
Would it really cause you that much consternation
to find, after you've been programming in Perl6
for some months or years, that next FOO is
actually a
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
Simon Cozens wrote:
Then I call Occam's Razor. Perl is supposed to be easy, no?
It's also supposed to have an implementation.
And to have a consistency level somewhat greater than zero.
Also, consider the implications for user-defined control
constructs.
--
John Porter
Simon Cozens wrote:
An object with exactly one and only one method doesn't sound that
dynamic to me.
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.)
--
John Porter
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
Simon Cozens writes:
: 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.
Larry Wall wrote:
We're not so far off of a yield-like
method on continuations here...
... ordinary blocks that can function as continuations
to the surrounding list context.
Ah! Now we're talking!
--
John Porter
* Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/08/2001 09:36]:
Taking history into account is good, though I'd argue that now is the
proper time to change history, if we're going to change. Perl would
never have been accepted in the first place had it been too different
from what came before, but now
At 01:19 PM 5/8/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
* Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/08/2001 09:36]:
Taking history into account is good, though I'd argue that now is the
proper time to change history, if we're going to change. Perl would
never have been accepted in the first place had it
Nathan Wiger wrote:
So could mean more and could mean less.
That would sure confuse the math subcommunity! ;-)
more and less could be inverses, more reading from the current
position forward and less from the current position backwards. This
notion could be generalized to
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
At 09:42 PM 5/8/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
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)
Simon Cozens wrote:
Can you give me an example that is i) useful
and ii) reasonably obvious to the untrained eye? If not, I humbly suggest it
has little business being in the blue-collar language we call Perl.
Rather than head off down this time-wasting tangent yet again,
I refer readers to
Simon Cozens wrote:
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.
nonsense! It's got accessor methods too, for everyone who
wanted to magicalize $index
Larry Wall wrote:
there seems to be a shortage of three-humped camels.
At last! the unencumbered image for the mascot! Could
O'Reilly really claim a three-humped camel was an image of
a camel, with a straight face?
Larry Wall wrote:
Syntactically speaking it's too ambiguous to have both a unary and a
bracketing .
Cool. Do we get a operator to use as an l-value, instead of print?
$log = join localtime, 'difficult cramigudgeo';
It's possible we're thinking of iterators wrong here. Perhaps
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I think Uri's qh() suggestion is the cleanest:
me too
And it would make hash declarations cleaner:
%hash = qh(
foo
bar
jim = 'bob'
var
);
Plus maybe even a pragma to set the default value:
use default hashval =
I know it is an annoying and bad habit but I'm still young enough so
at first glance I think I know it all.
[billions and billions of]
SYN_A # Return one element regardless of context.
SYN_B # Return number of element wanted by context.
SYN_C #
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
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Perhaps qi() for interpolate or something else.
coming to Perl from Scheme I recall some distress that
I had to create
($j=$i) =~ s/(\$\S+)/$1/ge;
instead of what I wanted to do
$j=qqq/$i/;
so my nomination is for tokens matching /qq*/ to behave like
David L. Nicol wrote:
That also wraps up the for should have an explicit
iterator access method thread handily! Just label your loop and
there you are!
Well, right. Every loop would have a control object,
whether it's nonymous or a-.
--
John Porter
At 10:23 PM 5/8/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
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
David L. Nicol writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Syntactically speaking it's too ambiguous to have both a unary and a
: bracketing .
:
: Cool. Do we get a operator to use as an l-value, instead of print?
:
: $log = join localtime, 'difficult cramigudgeo';
I don't think so.
: It's
Doubtless Damian could come up with a way to view them as hashes...
Well, of course.
An iterator is neither pure state nor pure behaviour. It's an
inextricable commingling of the two. In other words: an object.
So they are *most naturally* viewed as hashes:
package Iterator;
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
Three methods, surely: next, last, redo.
--
Piers Cawley
$$STDIN # Return one element regardless of context.
@$STDIN # Return number of element wanted by context.
*$STDIN # Return all element regardless of context.
How about
$STDIN.$ # Return one element regardless of context.
* Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/05/2001 17:51]:
%foo = ( foo = 1, bar = 1, '=' = 'baz' )
Of course, that could be spelt
%foo = +foo +bar =(baz);
Actually, it couldn't be because the in = would end the parsing.
Same problem that the POD chars have.
I think Uri's qh() suggestion
I think Uri's qh() suggestion is the cleanest:
Interesting train of thought, since one of the ideas was that qw() is
ugly and has to go. (Larry's been saying this for nearly two years now,
it's just that people sometimes don't listen. :) Let's keep it and add
something similarly ugly to
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
Uri Guttman wrote:
what larry seems to want is qh() for quote hash.
%foo = qh( foo bar baz )
is like
%foo = ( foo = 1, bar = 1, baz = 1 )
Thank you for giving me a chance to drag out my favorite
soapbox again. :-)
What is needed is better support for treating hashes as
sets.
Larry Wall wrote:
We do have to worry about the Cnext loop control function though.
It's possible that in
FOO: while (1) {
next FOO if /foo/;
...
}
the CFOO label is actually being recognized as a pseudo-package
name! The loop could well be an object whose full
* Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/07/2001 13:33]:
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 are
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,
* Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [05/07/2001 13:46]:
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. :)
Hmm, that's odd. As I
Simon Cozens writes:
However, we are not designing Perl 5.
This gets to a theme that is turning into more and more of an
irritant in following (and very occasionally participating) in the
ongoing discussion here.
There seems to be a sense among some participants that certain issues
are Off
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
Simon Cozens makes a good point in response to my slightly overamped
oration on the qualities of dissent.
I am seeing most of the current discussion on this list as being
brainstorming on details, not painting the vast new blue skies,
and that is as it should be.
Acknowledging that making
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.
At 01:51 AM 5/6/01 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
The debate rages on: Is Perl Bactrian or Dromedary?
It's a Dromedary, it says so in the Colophon.
But maybe the symbol of Perl 6 should be a Bactrian, with the extra hump
symbolizing the increased power.
You knew this was coming...
--
Peter Scott
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 10:10:24PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2001 15:22:40 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I suggest
that we simply create another q-op to do the qw-ish things you're proposing.
Perhaps qi() for interpolate or something else.
qqw
Why I'm reminded of car,
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 07:56:39PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Nathan Wiger writes:
: : This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning read to $_,
: : just like the current while (FOO) magic we all know and occasionally
: : love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish)
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:46:46AM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I'm wondering what this will do?
$thingy = $STDIN;
This seems to have two possibilities:
1. Make a copy of $STDIN
2. Read a line from
:$FH = open $file or die Can't open $file: $!;
:$line = next $FH;
:
: If so, I can live with that.
Yes, that's the reason it's Cnext, and not something more specific
like Creadline, which isn't even true in Perl 5 when $/ is mungled.
I dunno. Color me unconvinced--I do use the
Nathan Wiger writes:
: You know, I was just thinking about this, and I agree with Dan. Actually,
: there's some big problems in trying to get rid of and make Perl do the
: right thing in boolean context (like the while loop example). Consider:
:
:$FH = open /etc/motd;
:die No good
Ok, this is long, so here goes...
I expect the real choice is between $FOO and $FOO. I can convince
myself pretty easily that a unary is just another name for next, or
more, or something. On the other hand $FOO has history. And if
one special-cases $..., we could also have foo bar baz as
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
