Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-10-01 Thread Thomas A. Boyer
David Whipp wrote: > $b = 7, 6, 5 > @b = 7, 6, 5 I understand that C's *interpretation* of the comma operator will be expunged from Perl 6. But unless comma's *precedence* is also changing, neither of those statements would build a list with three elements. It seems to me that $b = 7, 6,

Re: Regex query

2002-09-29 Thread Smylers
Luke Palmer wrote: > On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote: > > > But because C<$num> _might_ be used as an array ref, the data has to > > be kept around, which is wasteful. > > The programmer should know whether it would or wouldn't, Oh, I wasn't doubting that. I was just concerned that if the 'typi

Re: Regex query

2002-09-29 Thread Smylers
Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:38, Smylers wrote: > > > ... lists now use square brackets. > > I don't disagree that this is a good thing, but let's look at some > cases that might not look the way you had intended: Oh, I hadn't really intending anything. Starting from what

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-25 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 11:54:06PM -0600, John Williams wrote: > After testing various cases of x, I came up with one that I cannot > explain. Can someone tell me what is happening here (in perl5)? > > $ perl -le 'print "@{[ $a = ('a','b') x 3 ]}"; print $a' > a bbb > bbb > > or in other words

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-25 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 17:27, John Williams wrote: > If I understand our non-conclusions so far, we're waiting for Larry to > clarify: > > 1) how to create a 1-tuple/1-item list? > > 2) how to interpret the flattened list context? e.g. given this: > > > $x = (1,2,3); > > @y = (

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread John Williams
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Lambert wrote: > > > > $a = (1, 2, 3); # Same as Perl 5's $a = [1,2,3]; > > $a = (1) should then do $a = [1], according to the above. > > This implies that: > > ($a) = (1) implies that $a is [1], something I don't particularly agree > with. You may be missing the chang

RE: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread David Whipp
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff > > $b = 7, 6, 5 > > @b = 7, 6, 5 > > > > Again, both create identical objects, under different > > interfaces. But now we have a problem with +$b: what should > > this mean? To be consistant with +$a (above), I would > > suggest that it simply returns the sum of

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Lambert writes: > Consider: > $a = (1); > and > ($a) = (1); Yes? They both do the same thing--set $a to 1. It looks like the bottom one is a list assigned to a list, but that might be optimized out, as it doesn't matter. > > 5. Assignment to arrays an

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread Mike Lambert
> 2. Scalar assignment. > > my $a;# 1. > $a = X; > > my $a;# 3. > ($a) = X; > > These should all do the same thing, regardless of X. Consider: $a = (1); and ($a) = (1); > 5. Assignment to arrays and lists. > > $a = (1, 2, 3); # Same as Perl 5's $a = [1,2,3];

RE: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 14:47, David Whipp wrote: > It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between > a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want After the first couple of messages, that was really no longer *my* concern, but I can't speak for others. My concern was mostly that par

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:47:16AM -0700, David Whipp wrote: > It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between > a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want > > $a = 7 > > to DWIM, whether I mean a list, or a scalar. Seems to me that > the best way to solve a dichotomy is to d

RE: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-24 Thread David Whipp
It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want $a = 7 to DWIM, whether I mean a list, or a scalar. Seems to me that the best way to solve a dichotomy is to declare it to not to be one: a scalar *IS* a list of one element. The only t

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread John Williams
> > In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes: > > > > then what about > > > > > >$a = (1) > > > > > > ? And if someone says that I have to write: > > > > > >$a = (1,) > > > > > > then I am going on the warpath. That Way Lay Python. You _can_ write that, but you don't

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:14:10PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote: > In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes: > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try: > > > > > > sub

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try: > > > > sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; } > > sub foo2(){ my $foo

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try: > > sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; } > sub foo2(){ my $foo = [1,2,3]; return $foo; } > sub foo3(*@list) { print @list.length,

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes: > That doesn't really work. Because now you introduce the case where: > > $x = (1,2,3); > @y = (1,2,3); > $z = [1,2,3]; > push @a, $x, @y, $z, (1,2,3), [1,2,3]; > > Behaves in ways that will take hours to explain to newb

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 11:07, Trey Harris wrote: > In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes: > > then what about > > > >$a = (1) > > > > ? And if someone says that I have to write: > > > >$a = (1,) > > > > then I am going on the warpath. That Way Lay Python. I would *

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:07 AM -0400 9/24/02, Trey Harris wrote: > >*shrug* Regardless of whether we like it, what Larry said is true unless >and until he invokes Rule 2. And unless he invokes Rule 2, >C is equivalent to C<[1,2,3]>. Then perhaps, rather than fretting over the unpleasant consequences of the curren

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 10:27, Peter Haworth wrote: > On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote: > > > sub push(@target is rw, *@list); > > > > Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array > > flattening, thus >

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes: > According to Trey Harris: > > According to Larry, > > $a = (1,2,3); > > is equivalent to > > $a = [1,2,3]; > > because they're both equivalent to > > $a = scalar(1,2,3) > > But that's the bit we're arguing about. If you allow >

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to Trey Harris: > According to Larry, > $a = (1,2,3); > is equivalent to > $a = [1,2,3]; > because they're both equivalent to > $a = scalar(1,2,3) But that's the bit we're arguing about. If you allow $a = (1,2) then what about $a = (1) ? And if someone says that I have

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Haworth
On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: > On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote: > > sub push(@target is rw, *@list); > > Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array > flattening, thus > > push @a, [1,2,3], 4; > > will (according to Larry's

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > At any rate, I do wish we'd stop kidding ourselves that Perl 6 is at all > going to be "cleaned up" or "regular"; I bet it'll end up with more edge > cases and special exceptions than Perl 5. Simon, Perl 6 *will* be more "regular" as

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes: > > If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much > > doomed from the outset. > > You have that upside-down. Because this is so fundamental, it's worth a > great deal of magic to make it "seem right" in as many contexts as > pos

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes: > say that array refs behave the same as arrays in every way *except* as > pertains to list flattening, and in that case, explicit flattening is > required, otherwise the ref is kept in the flattened array. Another blow to regularity. :( -- buf[

Re: Regex query

2002-09-24 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote: > In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes: > > This is because push is > > almost certainly defined as: > > > > sub push(@target, *@list) { ... } > > That should be > > sub push(@target is rw, *@list); Well, yes, but that wa

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:07, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes: > > Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean? > > We're talking about lists, the second most fundamental data structure > in the language. > > If we have to resort to much magic to

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread John Williams
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Trey Harris wrote: > > So then, I think if there's just some clarification about how one-tuples > are formed, I think everything I wrote in my earlier mail can DWIM > correctly. There seems to be no magic here, quotations from LoTR to the > contrary. :-) Your post was very h

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes: > This is because push is > almost certainly defined as: > > sub push(@target, *@list) { ... } That should be sub push(@target is rw, *@list); but otherwise I think that's right. Now, implementation in Perl 6 (though I assume it's

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:18, Smylers wrote: > $num = @massive; > > C<$num> becomes a reference to C<@massive>, but in a numeric context it > will evaluate to the number of elements in that array. > But in most cases, you would never do this. You would do something like my int $num =

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes: > Grrr... I want that to work, really I do, but since, as Larry has > pointed out, there's no functional difference between an array ref and > an array in Perl 6, they would be the same. This is because push is > almost certainly defined as: >

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Trey Harris
Replying to myself to clear a few things up... In a message dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Trey Harris writes: > 2. Scalar assignment. > > my $a;# 1. > $a = X; > > my $a;# 2. > $a = X; > > my $a;# 3. > ($a) = X; > > my($a) = X; # 4. > > my($a)

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 15:48, Luke Palmer wrote: > On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > > > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no > > > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one. > > > > Wha

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 16:58, Trey Harris wrote: > 4. Numeric value. > > The progression spoken about at great length previously: > > +()# == 0 > +(0) # == WHAT? 0? 1? > +(0,1) # == 2 > +(0,1,2) # == 3 > +(0,1,2,3) # == 4 > +(0,...,n) # == n + 1 > >

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer writes: > Y'all have it backwards. > > [1,*[2,[3,4,5]],6] # [1,2,[3,4,5],6] > [1,*[2,*[3,4,5]],6] # [1,2,3,4,5,6] > > Flat flattens outwards, not inwards. Ah. *slaps head* of course. That makes much more sense

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Luke Palmer
On 24 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > > push @a: [1,2,3,4]; > > > > pushes an array ref onto @a. > > > > push @a: *[1,2,3,4]; > > > > pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []). > > Remind me which language this is suppos

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Luke Palmer
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote: > > for (1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... } > > > > and > > > > for 1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... } > > > > Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In > > Hell Does T

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote: > for (1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... } > > and > > for 1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... } > > Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In > Hell Does This Expression Mean), is the above equivalent to > > for 1,qw(a

Re: Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trey Harris) writes: > May I suggest that we start with some DWIMmy examples Sam sat on the ground and put his head in his hands. 'I wish I had never come here, and I don't want to see no more magic,' he said, and fell silent. -- I hooked up my accelerator pedal in my car to

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > push @a: [1,2,3,4]; > > pushes an array ref onto @a. > > push @a: *[1,2,3,4]; > > pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []). Remind me which language this is supposed to be, again? -- "Life sucks, but it's better th

Paren madness (was Re: Regex query)

2002-09-23 Thread Trey Harris
I think this discussion has gotten out of hand, and I hope that Larry, Damian or Allison will grace us with a resolution soon. :-) May I suggest that we start with some DWIMmy examples and try to arrive at a mechanism that will make them all DWIM? Here are my opinions, feel free to shoot them do

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Luke Palmer
On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no > > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one. > > What context does "push" impute on its operands? > > If > p

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:38, Smylers wrote: > So if the difference between lists with parens and anon arrays with > square brackets is going away, it may make sense to standardize on the > latter rather than the former. In other words, lists now use square > brackets. > > That frees up parens f

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one. What context does "push" impute on its operands? If push @a, [1,2,3,4]; and push @a, 1,2,3,4; are goi

Re: Regex query

2002-09-23 Thread Andrew Rodland
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:33:31 -0600 (MDT), Luke Palmer said: > You know, the idea that square brackets are the only things that can > make lists is starting to really appeal to me. Similar for squiggles > and hashes. I don't know how many times in my early Perl5 days I did > this: > Since we no

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to John Williams: > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > (7,) is an abomination. It's one of python's misfeatures that annoys > > me the most. > > Of course, _requiring_ the comma is bad [...] Well, I don't know about Jonathan, but requiring the comma is exactly what Py

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread John Williams
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean? Something > along these lines: > > (7) # list context > (3+4) # numeric context (there's a numeric operator in there) > (3+4,5) # list context (comma trumps the n

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes: > How do you do C< ($a + $b) * $c > if parentheses are forbidden for > mathematical expressions? I thought that , was actually the list constructor, much as => is the pair constructor. (And hence a => 1, b => 2 would be a list of pairs.) Of co

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Markus Laire
And the one best reason I forgot to include: How do you do C< ($a + $b) * $c > if parentheses are forbidden for mathematical expressions? -- Markus Laire 'malaire' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 10:52 AM -0500 9/21/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: >So, you expect 7.pow(2) to work? I'd expect it to be an error (this >isn't python after all). Sure, why not? I mean, we already use methods on integers all the time--what do you thin 12.5 is anyway, other than calling the 5 method on the c

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Pixel
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > According to David Whipp: > > (7,8,9) == 3 # true > > (7,8) == 2 # true > > (7) == 1 # false > > () == 0 # true? > > Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same > problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax! v

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes: > Does that matter? This example is fairly contrived, and anybody > actually concerned about this can always use: > > $num = @massive.length; I'd be in favour of forcing people to say this if they want the length of the array. But then, it might be that wh

Re: Regex query

2002-09-22 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes: > Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean? We're talking about lists, the second most fundamental data structure in the language. If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much doomed from the outset. --

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread matt diephouse
Luke Palmer wrote: >On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Markus Laire wrote: >You know, the idea that square brackets are the only things that can make >lists is starting to really appeal to me. Similar for squiggles and > >So parens really do provide grouping, not list constructing. Thus, this >can stay:

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Luke Palmer
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Markus Laire wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > > > > > Anyway, (7) or (3+4) should yield a number, not a list, because > > > otherwise every math expression will break. > > > >

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Markus Laire
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > > > Anyway, (7) or (3+4) should yield a number, not a list, because > > otherwise every math expression will break. > > Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we me

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Luke Palmer
On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote: > Luke Palmer wrote: > > > my @v = $( &func() ); > > > > Would provide scalar context. But then assign it to a list... > > In the course of reading that I developed a concern about memory usage > when trying to find the size of arrays. As I understand it th

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 11:36:49AM -0600, John Williams wrote: > On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > > I can't tell whether (7).length is asking for the length > > > of 7 or the length of a list, but I would be badly surprised if > > > (3+4).pow(2) returned 1 instead of 49. > > > >

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread John Williams
On 21 Sep 2002, Smylers wrote: > > Does that matter? This example is fairly contrived, and anybody > actually concerned about this can always use: > > $num = @massive.length; > > So perhaps this isn't a problem. $num = +@massive; would also set $num to the length, not the ref. ~ John Willi

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread John Williams
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > I can't tell whether (7).length is asking for the length > > of 7 or the length of a list, but I would be badly surprised if > > (3+4).pow(2) returned 1 instead of 49. > > So, you expect 7.pow(2) to work? I'd expect it to be an error (this > isn

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:46:58PM -0600, John Williams wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > > But I cannot tell whether (7) is list context or numeric context, > > > > Nope, you can't tell without the surrounding context: > > > > (7) + 0;# numeric > > $a =

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Smylers
Tanton Gibbs wrote: > (7) == 7 > > why? Otherwise, we couldn't use parens for mathematical expressions But as Luke Palmer pointed about above, this syntax would make square brackets redundant, so we could now use those unambiguously for overriding mathematical precedence ... (Sorry about t

Re: Regex query

2002-09-21 Thread Smylers
Luke Palmer wrote: > my @v = $( &func() ); > > Would provide scalar context. But then assign it to a list... In the course of reading that I developed a concern about memory usage when trying to find the size of arrays. As I understand it the Perl 5 syntax for discovering the number of

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread John Williams
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > But I cannot tell whether (7) is list context or numeric context, > > Nope, you can't tell without the surrounding context: > > (7) + 0;# numeric > $a = (7); # list > (7) == 1; # boolean (same as (7).length =

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Tanton Gibbs
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous: > > it introduces subtle bug potentials. > > > > (7,8,9) == 3 # true > > (7,8) == 2 # true > > (7) == 1 # false > > Why is this one false? I'd expect it to be true just as the others. (7) == 7 why? Otherwise, we couldn't use

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:16:38PM -0400, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > According to John Williams: > > I believe the last two cases should be: > > (7,)== 1 > > (,) == 0 > > Gack! It's Python's tuple syntax! Run away! Run away! > > Seriously, having actually programmed Python for m

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 02:17:42PM -0700, David Whipp wrote: > Larry wrote: > > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0; > > > > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think. > > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the > > last value.) > > This kind of clever magic

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 09:02:52PM -0600, John Williams wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote: > > If this is the case, then can you also have: > > > > (,7) > > > > What is its length? > > Hmm, it's a syntax error in perl5. I'd advocate it continuing to be a syntax error in perl 6.

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread John Williams
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote: > > I believe the last two cases should be: > > > > (7,)== 1 > > (,) == 0 > > > > Because its the perl6 comma that creates the list, not the parenthesis. > > > > ~ John Williams > > If this is the case, then can you also have: > > (,7) > >

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to John Williams: > I believe the last two cases should be: > (7,)== 1 > (,) == 0 Gack! It's Python's tuple syntax! Run away! Run away! Seriously, having actually programmed Python for money (no smiley -- it was NOT fun), I can say that this syntactical hack would be

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Tanton Gibbs
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous: > > it introduces subtle bug potentials. > > > > (7,8,9) == 3 # true > > (7,8) == 2 # true > > (7) == 1 # false > > () == 0 # true? > > I believe the last two cases should be: > > (7,)== 1 > (,) == 0 > > B

RE: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread John Williams
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, David Whipp wrote: > Larry wrote: > > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0; > > > > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think. > > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the > > last value.) > > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Luke Palmer
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote: > According to Luke Palmer: > > I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this: > > > > my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") ); > > Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in > > my @v = ( &func() ); > > that &func is called

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to David Whipp: > (7,8,9) == 3 # true > (7,8) == 2 # true > (7) == 1 # false > () == 0 # true? Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax! Larry, I strongly suggest that making () act in any way like [

RE: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread David Whipp
Larry wrote: > : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0; > > It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 programmer would think. > (In Perl 6 it's the length of the anonymous array, not the > last value.) This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous: it introduces subtle bug potentials. (7,8,9) ==

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Chip Salzenberg
According to Luke Palmer: > I think to get Perl5 behavioueaur :), you do this: > > my @flatL = ( *("1a", "2a"), *("1b", "2b") ); Geez, I hope not, because that would imply that in my @v = ( &func() ); that &func is called in a scalar context. -- Chip Salzenberg - a.k.a. -

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Luke Palmer
> >I was just thinking that $((1,2,3)) is also the same as [1,2,3], > >and shorter than scalar(1,2,3). > > > I wonder if you can't just use $(1, 2, 3) to the same effect. I think you can. I was under the impression that the C comma was dying, so that would have to make a list or err. > Al

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread matt diephouse
John Williams wrote: >On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote: > > >>On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote: >>: On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote: >>: > >>: > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6: >>: > >>: > $arrayref = (1,2,3); >>: >>: That wou

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread John Williams
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote: > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote: > : On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote: > : > > : > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6: > : > > : > $arrayref = (1,2,3); > : > : That would seem to obviate the need for

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote: : On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote: : > : > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6: : > : > $arrayref = (1,2,3); : : That would seem to obviate the need for brackets to define array : references. Is there any

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread John Williams
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Larry Wall wrote: > > Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will make a ref in Perl 6: > > $arrayref = (1,2,3); That would seem to obviate the need for brackets to define array references. Is there any case where [1,2,3] would be needed instead of (1,2,3)? Al

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 10:39, Larry Wall wrote: > On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote: > : Is that "any list" as oppopsed to "any array"? Or is that arrayref in a > : numeric context the length of the array? In other words does this do > : what I think I think it does? > : > : $shouldbe3 = (1,

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Larry Wall
On 20 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote: : Is that "any list" as oppopsed to "any array"? Or is that arrayref in a : numeric context the length of the array? In other words does this do : what I think I think it does? : : $shouldbe3 = (1,2,3) + 0; It's 3, though not for the reason a Perl 5 pro

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 04:14, Larry Wall wrote: > On 20 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote: > : > their names. also if you use a scalar to grab something which is in a > : > quantified outer rule what is put in the var? a ref to a list of the > : > grabbed things? > : > : *nod* Something I'd like to kno

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Larry Wall
On 20 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote: : > their names. also if you use a scalar to grab something which is in a : > quantified outer rule what is put in the var? a ref to a list of the : > grabbed things? : : *nod* Something I'd like to know. Yes, in fact any list forced into scalar context will m

Re: Regex query

2002-09-20 Thread Uri Guttman
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes: >> actually i just had another thought. you don't need any of the $foo := >> stuff as the match tree will have it all for you. SC> Yes, but it's nice to be able to access the captured thin

Re: Regex query

2002-09-19 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes: > actually i just had another thought. you don't need any of the $foo := > stuff as the match tree will have it all for you. Yes, but it's nice to be able to access the captured things by name. Or should I be saying things like rule raiddev { *

Re: Regex query

2002-09-19 Thread Uri Guttman
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: SC> rule comm_eol { ? \n }; >> >> aren't those 's redundant? the first is overlapping with the one at >> the beginning of comment. SC> But only matches if there *is* a comment, and there may not SC> be, so I want to match opt

Re: Regex query

2002-09-19 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Guttman) writes: > shouldn't that have a inside the blank line? Or *, yes. > SC> rule comm_eol { ? \n }; > > aren't those 's redundant? the first is overlapping with the one at > the beginning of comment. But only matches if there *is* a comment, and there may not

Re: Regex query

2002-09-19 Thread Uri Guttman
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: SC> raiddev /dev/md0 SC> raid-level 5 SC> option value SC> option value SC> ... SC> device /dev/sde1 SC> raid-disk 0