Re: RFC: new logical operator & more syntactic maple syrup

2002-02-22 Thread Larry Wall
Aaron Sherman writes: : On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 19:49, Larry Wall wrote: : > David M. Lloyd writes: : > : On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote: : > : : > : > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like: : > : > : > : > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { } : > : > : > : > t

Re: RFC: new logical operator & more syntactic maple syrup

2002-02-22 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 19:49, Larry Wall wrote: > David M. Lloyd writes: > : On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote: > : > : > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like: > : > > : > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { } > : > > : > to avoid my program writing garbage to ST

Re: RFC: new logical operator & more syntactic maple syrup

2002-02-21 Thread Larry Wall
David M. Lloyd writes: : On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote: : : > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like: : > : > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { } : > : > to avoid my program writing garbage to STDERR. : : Of course you will now be able to say: : : if ($foo

Re: RFC: new logical operator & more syntactic maple syrup

2002-02-21 Thread David M. Lloyd
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote: > I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like: > > if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { } > > to avoid my program writing garbage to STDERR. Of course you will now be able to say: if ($foo // "" ne "bar") { } Right? - D <[EMAIL PR

Re: RFC: new logical operator & more syntactic maple syrup

2002-02-21 Thread Sam Vilain
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An off-the-wall thought... If this is not the "expected" condition, > should it have the extra meaning of an assertion? For example, > could set $! to 'defined $foo but $foo eq ""' and, if -w was in use, > issue 'warn "Exceptional condition: $!"' Intere

Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread Sam Vilain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote: > Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It just > Sam> implies that the second condition is not generally what you'd > Sam> expect if the first was true. > Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make it > "even_

Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 09:01, Sam Vilain wrote: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:50:13 -0600 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:30:11PM +, Sam Vilain wrote: > > > I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in: > > > if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") { > > *scratches head* >

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread Melvin Smith
At 09:47 AM 2/21/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It >Sam> just implies that the second condition is not generally what >Sam> you'd expect if the first was true. > >Randal> Mayb

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread Austin Hastings
It can't be that confusing at first glance if English dedicates a slot way up in the huffman table to the word, eh? print "; " if ($need_eol but $current_column < 21); OTOH, this might become an "and grep-not" operator for (was it Damian?)'s quantum operators: @y = all(@x) but { /^anti/ }

Re: Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread jadams01
"Randal L. Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It Sam> just implies that the second condition is not generally what Sam> you'd expect if the first was true. Randal> Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make Randal>

Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "Sam" == Sam Vilain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sam> No, "but" is syntactically equivalent to "and" in English. It just Sam> implies that the second condition is not generally what you'd expect if Sam> the first was true. Maybe in the interest of huffman encoding, we could make it "even_t

Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread Sam Vilain
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:50:13 -0600 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:30:11PM +, Sam Vilain wrote: > > I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in: > > if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") { > *scratches head* > so... it negates the left side, then ANDs it with the right?

Re: RFC: new logical operator

2002-02-21 Thread hachi
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:30:11PM +, Sam Vilain wrote: > I think Perl 6 should have a "but" keyword, as in: > > if (defined $foo but $foo eq "") { *scratches head* so... it negates the left side, then ANDs it with the right? also, it seems to be rather vague to me. in order to sound clear