On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
>
> > You're assuming that C in a ternary operator. It
> > could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
> > that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. C).
>
On 24 Aug 2004, at 22:14, Aaron Sherman wrote:
You don't HAVE to use auto-topicalization. You CAN always write it
long-hand if you find that confusing:
for @words -> $word {
given ($chars($word) > 70) -> $toolong {
say abbreviate($word) ?? $word;
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 15:55, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Yep, and since ~~ auto-topicalizes its lhs for its rhs, your binary ??
> > is all you need. I wish I'd seen your message before I sent my recent
> > one, as I would have just started from there.
>
Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
> > overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
>
> Not necessarily. You're assuming tha
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
> You're assuming that C in a ternary operator. It
> could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
> that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. C).
> We could actually define ?? as a binary operator in
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
> > I'd even prefer a longhand:
> >
> > $foo either 0 or split();
>
> The overloading of
Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
figure out went wrong!
Sarcasm is an ugly thing.
One thing that I just thought of that could be intersting:
$foo => 'a' or 'b'
My thought was that l
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
> I'd even prefer a longhand:
>
> $foo either 0 or split();
The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
"Alexey Trofimenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficulties with
> recognizing C<::> as part of C<... ?? ... :: ...> and C<::> as
> "module sigil"? Does it involve some DWIM?
Among other things, the ?? will tip off the parser that it's looking
for an ex
Aaron Sherman writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > $foo??split()::0;
> >
> >Ought to be fine
> >
>
> Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
> backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
>
> $foo??0::split()
>
> ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having
to use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it stands out as much as
it should.
I hate to reply to my own message, but...
How about
$foo??split()!!0;
for a touch of craziness. Or is !! not usable? Actually, just igno
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous. I'd
even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
to the troublesome double-usage of C<::>
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having to
use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it s
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0
Juerd writes:
> Where :: (in a module name) can be used, an operator could have been
> used.
>
> How is $foo??Bar::Baz::Quux parsed?
$foo ?? Bar::Baz::Quux; # error, :: expected
Indeed, this is illegal:
Bar::Baz :: Quux.new;
No whitespace allowed.
> I hope it's an error, although so
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-08-23 23:12 (+0100):
> I doubt that's a problem, as C<::> as part of the ternary operator is
> only going to be found where an operator is expected, and C<::> as part
> of a module name is only going to be found where an identifier is
> expected, so it's a matter of l
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficul
> "AS" == Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AS> Matthew Walton wrote:
>> Larry Wall wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect there's an argument that [0,0) ought to be considered undef
>>> (which would conveniently numerify to 0 with an optional warning).
>>
>> In the absence of a parad
Matthew Walton wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
I suspect there's an argument that [0,0) ought to be considered undef
(which would conveniently numerify to 0 with an optional warning).
In the absence of a paradox value, undef would be fine there I think :-)
Too bad we don't have NaRN (Not a Random Number).
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: It would be nice if rand behaved a bit more sanely in Perl 6. I can
: understand the reasoning for making rand 0 produce between 0 and 1, but
: that doesn't mean I have to like it.
What makes you think there was
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: It would be nice if rand behaved a bit more sanely in Perl 6. I can
: understand the reasoning for making rand 0 produce between 0 and 1, but
: that doesn't mean I have to like it.
What makes you think there was any "reasoning" in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
The one in Perl 5 that stands out most was the cause for the only patch
I ever sent to p5p: the rand function. "rand $x" will give you a
uniformly distributed random number in [0, $x) for any $x EXCEPT 0. I
On Aug 19, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
First off, in Perl 6, I *think* that that C<< => >> will enforce a
scalar context (it's a tuple operator, last I recall).
W00t!
Second, in Perl 5 it should not be hard to identify such situations for
warning purposes. C<< => >> may be a synonym for
On Aug 19, 2004, at 9:41 AM, Matt Diephouse wrote:
If the parameter does not exist at all, then param() will return
undef in a scalar context, and the empty list in a list context.
Sure enough. And I've even read a large percentage of the (unwieldy)
CGI.pm docs. But I was using C as an exam
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 10:03, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Matt Diephouse writes:
> > use CGI qw(:standard);
> >
> > my $foo = Bar->new(
> > name => "Baz",
> > value => param('baz'),
> > something => 'else'
> > );
> >
> > See the problem?
>
> Yikes, yeah, that see
Matt Diephouse writes:
> The point that it's documented for C and for C doesn't
> remove the fact that while this DWIM the majority of the time, it can
> be the cause of a subtle bug. I'm sure many people don't know about
> the DWIM behavior. Or aren't actively aware of it.
As is the case with man
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:52:18 +0200, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ouch. You have foo-bar-baz code *at work*? :)
Unfortunately, some of the code here is much worse than that.
> In fact, this was anticipated and the doesn't-exist case is explicitly
> documented as:
>
> If the parameter do
Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-08-19 9:35 (-0400):
> But I came across this code at work this week:
> use CGI qw(:standard);
> my $foo = Bar->new(
> name => "Baz",
> value => param('baz'),
> something => 'else'
> );
Ouch. You have foo-bar-baz code *at work*? :)
>
Matt Diephouse writes:
> use CGI qw(:standard);
>
> my $foo = Bar->new(
> name => "Baz",
> value => param('baz'),
> something => 'else'
> );
>
> See the problem?
Yikes, yeah, that seems so innocent.
> C uses C. In this example, it's called in list
> cont
29 matches
Mail list logo
