On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 21:25:39 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 06:31:35AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: for 1..10_000_000 {
: my ($a,$b,$c) = ...
: ...
: }
:
: vs.
:
: for 1..10_000_000 {
: state ($a,$b,$c) = ...
: ...
: }
:
:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:03:45PM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: P.S.
: btw, what about
:
: my @rray;
: # i'm starting to like that sigil is a part of name idea :)
Too cute. But what about %ash and unction? Or is it ubroutine? losure?
: for 1..10 {
: {
:push @rray, \(
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 11:33:10 -0800, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 08:03:45PM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: P.S.
: btw, what about
:
: my @rray;
: # i'm starting to like that sigil is a part of name idea :)
: for 1..10 {
: {
:push @rray, \( state
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 02:15:51AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I thought, its primary use is for closures:
:
: sub test {
: my $a=10;
: return sub { $a++ }
: }
:
: vs
: sub test {
: return sub {state $a=10; $a++ }
: }
:
: $func1 = test;
: $func2 = test;
:
: would
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 06:31:35AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: for 1..10_000_000 {
: my ($a,$b,$c) = ...
: ...
: }
:
: vs.
:
: for 1..10_000_000 {
: state ($a,$b,$c) = ...
: ...
: }
:
: latter looks like it would run faster, because no reallocation envolved
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So optimizing to a state variable won't necessarily help your loop
overhead, but it could help your subroutine overhead, at least in Perl
5, if Perl 5 had state variables. Best you can do in Perl 5 is an
our variable with an obscure name.
my $x if 0;
On 3/12/03 1:50 AM, Mark Biggar wrote:
John Siracusa wrote:
From A6:
I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do
better
--- John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From A6:
I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to
compile fast
subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion
of
handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to
do better
than Perl
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:04:47AM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
: On 3/12/03 1:50 AM, Mark Biggar wrote:
: John Siracusa wrote:
: From A6:
: I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
: subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
:
John Siracusa wrote:
From A6:
I worry that generalized wrappers will make it impossible to compile fast
subroutine calls, if we always have to allow for run-time insertion of
handlers. Of course, that's no slower than Perl 5, but we'd like to do better
than Perl 5. Perhaps we can have the default
--- Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But mad or not, there are some good reasons to do just
that. First, it makes it possible to write interfaces to
other
languages in Perl. Second, it gives the optimizer more
information to think about. Third, it allows
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of literals and scalars.
An Iarray is a
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a
--
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:03:41
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral
On 2003-02-11 at 16:52:36, Dave Whipp wrote:
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On 2003-02-11 at 17:44:08, Mark J. Reed wrote:
pop @{[@a,@b,@c]}
It creates an anonymous array, then removes the last element,
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2003-02-11 at 17:12:52, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
(@a,@b,@c).pop
This doesn't make any sense, since pop modifies the pop-ee.
What do you expect should happen here?
[@a,@b,@c].pop
Same as above.
Except that the Perl5 equivalent, ugly as the
On 2003-02-12 at 11:07:45, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Meaning that I think this should be possible, but I'm not
sure if that syntax is correct, because it would mean that
the arrayrefs would need to be their own class to allow
a method to be called on it.
No, they wouldn't, unless I'm missing
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 04:56 PM, Deborah Ariel Pickett
wrote:
But is it OK for a list to be silently promoted to an array when used
as an array? So that all of the following would work, and not just
50%
of them?
(1..10).map {...}
[1..10].map {...}
And somehow related to
--
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:28:23
Luke Palmer wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:34:57 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of literals and scalars.
An Iarray is a variable that holds a list.
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
A Iliteral is a piece of data.
A Iscalar is a variable that holds a literal.
A Ilist is a sequence of
Here are some of the answers from my own notes. These behaviors have
all been confirmed on-list by the design team:
An @array in list context returns a list of its elements
An @array in scalar context returns a reference to itself (NOTE1)
An @array in numeric (scalar) context returns
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are variables.
- Lists are values.
My hesitation about the 'arrays are variables' part is that Damian
corrected me on a similar thing when I was
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 06:26 PM, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
(Just going off on a tangent: Is it true that an array slice such as
@array[4..8]
is syntactically equivalent to this list
(@array[4], @array[5], @array[6], @array[7], @array[8])
? Are array
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Just to clarify... in P6, is this an array reference, or a list
reference?
[1,2,3]
Exactly. It's still up in the air...
Apoc 2, RFC 175:
So it works out that the explicit list composer:
[1,2,3]
is syntactic sugar for
[Recipients trimmed back to just p6-language; the Cc: list was getting
a bit large.]
On 2003-02-11 at 12:56:45, Garrett Goebel wrote:
I'd just stick with Uri's explanation. Arrays are allocated. Lists are
on the stack...
Nuh-uh. Those are implementation details, not part of the language
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
What about this?
\@array
hmm. As perl Apoc2, Lists, RFC 175... arrays and hashes return a
reference
to themselves in scalar context... I'm not sure what context '\' puts
them
in.
I'd guess \@array is a reference to an
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
- Arrays are variables.
- Lists are values.
My hesitation about the 'arrays are variables' part is that Damian
corrected me on a
On 2003-02-11 at 17:12:52, Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
(@a,@b,@c).pop
This doesn't make any sense, since pop modifies the pop-ee.
What do you expect should happen here?
[@a,@b,@c].pop
Same as above.
Except that the Perl5 equivalent, ugly as the syntax may be, works fine:
On 2003-02-11 at 17:44:08, Mark J. Reed wrote:
pop @{[@a,@b,@c]}
It creates an anonymous array, then removes the last element, leaving two
elements in the array - which is irrelevant since the array is
then discarded completely.
Minor correction: we don't know how many elements
JFR == Joseph F Ryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(@a,@b,@c).pop
JFR This doesn't make any sense, since pop modifies the pop-ee.
JFR What do you expect should happen here?
[@a,@b,@c].pop
JFR Same as above.
there is a subtle distinction in those two. the first should be a syntax
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
What is the utility of the perl5 behavior:
\($a,$b,$c)
meaning
(\$a, \$b, \$c)
Do people really do that? I must say, given that it looks *so
obviously* like it instead means
Dave Whipp:
# Minor correction: we don't know how many elements are left in the
# array - it depends on how many elements were in @a, @b, and @c to
# start with. One less than that. :)
#
# These days you need the splat operator to flatten lists: so
My understanding was that arrays would
But is it OK for a list to be silently promoted to an array when used
as an array? So that all of the following would work, and not just 50%
of them?
(1..10).map {...}
[1..10].map {...}
And somehow related to all this . . .
Let's assume for the moment that there's still a
Michael == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Michael Do people really do that? I must say, given that it looks *so
Michael obviously* like it instead means [$a,$b,$c], I wonder if attempting to
Michael take a reference to a list should be a compile-time error.
Michael Note that this is
Uri Guttman wrote:
arrays are allocated and lists are on the stack. so arrays
can have references to them but lists can't.
Apoc 2, RFC 175:
scalar(list(1,2,3));
[...]
scalar(array(1,2,3));
Which would imply one could take a reference to either.
can anyone see any changes in perl6
While I like the glib Arrays are variables that hold lists explanation
that worked so well in Perl5, I think that Perl6 is introducing some
changes to this that make this less true.
Like what?
Well, like the builtin switch statement, which was what I was trying to
show in my bad example
From: Deborah Ariel Pickett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:15:13 +1100 (EST)
In Perl6, where there seems to be even more of a blur between
compile-time and runtime, I don't think it's always going to be possible
(i.e., easy) to know where naming an array or providing an actual
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
While I like the glib Arrays are variables that hold lists explanation
that worked so well in Perl5, I think that Perl6 is introducing some
changes to this that make this less true.
Like what?
Well, like the builtin switch statement, which was what I was
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
be helpful.
While I like the glib Arrays are variables that hold lists explanation
Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
be helpful.
While I like the glib Arrays are
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in
Perl6?
If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it
would be helpful.
How's this?
On 2003-02-07 at 11:13:07, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in
Perl6?
How's this?
A list is a literal (e.g.,
On 2003-02-07 at 14:26:42, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Not really, though. A list can be an lvalue, provided it is a list
of lvalues:
($a, $b, $c) = 1,2,3;
Forgot the parens on the right side, there:
($a, $b, $c) = (1,2,3);
But they certainly aren't lvalues:
[$a,$b,$c]
--- Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2003-02-07 at 11:13:07, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer
the
question what's the difference between an array and a list in
Perl6?
How's
On 2003-02-07 at 12:18:21, Austin Hastings wrote:
Although this may reasonably be regarded as a special case; you
certainly can't pop a list:
(1,2,3).pop = error
But could you do it the other way (function instead of method)?
pop (1,2,3) = ?
Nope. At least, not in Perl
MJR == Mark J Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MJR A reference is fundamentally a pointer, but that doesn't help. My point
MJR was that if you're talking about lists vs. arrays, you have at least
MJR three different syntaxes to distinguish:
MJR (1,2,3)
MJR @arrayName
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can be
as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
temporary). lists can't live beyond the current expression but arrays
can.
Along those
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can
be as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
temporary). lists can't
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
usable two-sentence definition is:
-- A list is an ordered set of scalar values.
quibble: that's an ordered bag, isn't it? ;)
--
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 02:30:47PM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2003-02-07 at 14:26:42, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Not really, though. A list can be an lvalue, provided it is a list
of lvalues:
Note that to avoid the burden of writing an explicit slice, 'undef' is
considered as a lvalue in such a
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 03:38 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
but you can't derive the rules about allowing push/pop/splice/slice
from
that pair of defintions.
ML Is there any syntactic reason why both of the following cannot be
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:38:36PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
ML usable two-sentence definition is:
ML -- A list is an ordered set of scalar values.
ML -- An array is
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 14:46:37 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 02:07 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
the whole notion is that lists are always temporary and arrays can be
as
permanent as you want (an array ref going quickly out of scope is very
On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML \(1,2,3)
ML returns an array reference...
in perl5 it returns a list of refs ( \1, \2, \3 ). i dunno the perl6
semantics. it could be the same as [ 1, 2, 3 ] which means it is not a
Sorry, I was misremembering a
AT == Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AT On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 06:38:36PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
ML == Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ML Along those lines, the closest I've been able to come so far to a
ML usable two-sentence definition is:
ML -- A list is
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance
specific, if you do Evil Things with multiple copies of a single base
class in different legs of the inheritance tree and override the
default behaviour of the engine) and not queryable at runtime without
Luke Palmer wrote:
Could you just look through the lexical scope of the object?
for $this.MY.kv - $k, $v {
print $k: $v\n
}
Or would you look through the class's lexical scope and apply it to
the object?
for keys $this.class.MY {
print $_: $this.MY{$_}\n
}
I
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Basically anything you can potentially find in a symbol table or
lexical scratchpad will potentially be able to have a property
attached to it. The only way that we'll be able to reasonably
restrict (and optimize) the use of
Larry Wall wrote:
... I can see ways of binding properties
to a location without growing the location itself, but I think stuffing
a junction of ints into a single location is somewhat problematical.
We are still talking about native types - these with lowercase names in
the docs? Why
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Primitive types were originally intended for runtime speed, thus an
int or a bit is as small as possible, and not a lot of weird
runtime
checking has to take place that would slow it down. It can't even be
undef, because that would take an extra
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
Any '1' value will trigger a search for undef bit values. Presuming
that bit values will not frequently be undef, the search should be
cheap and the storage requirements will
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run-time properties really are associated with the object in question,
which implies some amount of overhead. For that
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run-time properties really are associated with the object in
question,
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
Run-time properties really are associated with the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 03:56:04PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
At 3:56 PM -0600 11/7/02, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
From A2 we have:
[Recipients list trimmed back to just the list - it was getting ridiculous.
So everyone will get only get one copy and it may take a tad longer to
get there . . .]
On 2002-11-07 at 17:07:46, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Attributes are class-specific for a variable (okay, class instance
specific, if
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:19:28 -0500
From: Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Julian-Day: 2452586.42675
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
[Recipients list trimmed back to just the list
On 2002-11-07 at 15:28:14, Luke Palmer wrote:
From: Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Will something like that not be possible in Perl6?
I'm afraid that statement is false for all values of something :)
Good point. Erratum: for possible,
On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 04:16:50PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 8:29 PM +0100 11/7/02, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:
:
: On Thursday, November 7, 2002, at 06:36 AM, Austin Hastings wrote:
:
: For 'bit', the key value is (eenie, meenie, ...) '1'.
:
:
: From A2 we have:
At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it loses all its run-time
properties; and superpositions will collapse.
What makes you think so, and are you really sure?
--
Dan
Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org] wrote:
At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it
loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions
will collapse.
What makes you think so, and are you really sure?
I was sure up until the
At 8:24 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
If I am wrong, then I am in need of enlightenment. What
is the difference between the primitive types and their
heavyweight partners? And which should I use in a typical
script?
The big difference is there's no way you can ever truly get a
primitive
David Whipp wrote:
Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org] wrote:
At 6:50 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
Whenever a value passes through a primitive type, it
loses all its run-time properties; and superpositions
will collapse.
What makes you think so, and are you really sure?
Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org] wrote:
At 8:24 PM -0800 11/6/02, David Whipp wrote:
If I am wrong, then I am in need of enlightenment. What
is the difference between the primitive types and their
heavyweight partners? And which should I use in a typical
script?
The big difference is
I gotta admit that this issue is bugging me too. Larry mentions (in
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=enlr=ie=UTF-8selm=Pine.LNX.4.44.0210140927520.20533-10%40london.wall.org)
that all-uppercase is ugly and has boundary conditions.
Maybe it would be helpful to know what conditions are
See
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-internals;perl.org/msg11308.html
for a closely-related discussion.
/s
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, David Whipp wrote:
In Perl6, everything is an object. So almost everything is
neither a number nor a string. It probably doesn't make sense
to cast things to
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
op variant
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:01:31 -0700
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
Cc: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12-dev,
David Wheeler wrote:
I just want to verify that I properly understand the use of these two terms
in Perl 6.
and in the wider OO community, BTW.
* An attribute is a data member of a class.
Yes.
* A property is a piece of metadata on a...uh...thing -- e.g., on an
attribute,
On 5/11/02 2:48 PM, Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
Well, I suppose there's always a *chance* that we'd both completely reverse
our careful thinking on this issue and ignore the common usage of attribute
in the OO literature. But I do think it would be easier all round if you just
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
--
Bart.
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
Yes, well, some people want to get rid
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about borrowing from Objective C?
[$object method(foo, bar)];
How do you create an anonymous
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
Bart Lateur writes:
: Er... hip hip hurray?!?!
:
: This is precisely the reason why I came up with the raw idea of
: highlander variables in the first place: because it's annoying not being
: able to access a hash passed to a sub
the idea of a dereference operator dumbfounds lots
of folks. What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a
pointer? A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so
is the syntax.
So you want a method invocation syntax that doesn't remind people of
references.
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
distinction between $object and method().
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient
Lateur; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Curious: - vs .
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my
Bart Lateur writes:
: Yeah. But no cheers then. The problem still remains: you can access a
: hash in the normal way in plain code, but inside a sub, you can mainly
: only access a passed hash through a reference.
Won't be a problem.
: It's annoying to basically having two ways of doing
At 09:06 PM 4/24/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Edward Peschko writes:
: Ok, so what does:
:
: my %hash = ( 1 = 3);
: my $hash = { 1 = 4};
:
: print $hash{1};
:
: print?
4. You must say %hash{1} if you want the other.
I was teaching an intro class yesterday and as usual, there were several
John Porter wrote:
We could y/$@%/@%$/ ...
... and create an alternate parser able to handle the full
internal internals API.
I have finally figured out the main motivation behind the
whole perl6 effort: the obfuscated perl contests were
getting repetitive.
Good night.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
Edward Peschko writes:
: I guess my question is what would be the syntax to access hashes? Would
:
: $hashref.{ }
:
: be that desirable? I really like -{ } in that case..
It won't be either of those. It'll simply be $hashref{ }.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
: Ok, so what does:
:
: my %hash = ( 1 = 3);
: my $hash = { 1 = 4};
:
: print $hash{1};
:
: print?
4. You must say %hash{1} if you want the other.
Ok. So how about hash slices? Is $hash{$a, $b}, the faked
multidimensional hash,
Bart Lateur writes:
: Er... hip hip hurray?!?!
:
: This is precisely the reason why I came up with the raw idea of
: highlander variables in the first place: because it's annoying not being
: able to access a hash passed to a sub through a hash reference, in the
: normal way. Not unless you do
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Here's something I was thinking about at lunch:
$concated_number = $number + $other_number;
$numerical_add = $number + $other_number;
One major, MAJOR pet peeve I have wrt Javascript is that it uses
+ to mean concatenation as well as addition, and that it (like
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:59:54PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Doesn't ~ look like a piece of string to you? :-)
It looks like a bitwise op to me, personally.
That's because every time you've used it in Perl, it's been a bitwise
op. Sapir-Whorf, and all that.
--
So what if I have a fertile
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:46:20PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 12:59:54PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Doesn't ~ look like a piece of string to you? :-)
It looks like a bitwise op to me, personally.
That's because every time you've used it in Perl, it's been a
201 - 300 of 332 matches
Mail list logo
