I just want to say it seems appropriate that this discussion of how
Perl can look like Morse Code is happening in the thread I first started,
since I was active in ham radio from 1970-95 (mostly CW, or Morse Code
to you non-hams).
And consider it a blessing that Perl can look like Morse Code,
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:39:01AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional.
___ ... ___ is valid. :)
--
Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kwalitee Is
Larry Wall wrote:
Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional.
Ref: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02873.html )
--
John Porter
Simon Cozens writes:
: Hey, that would make _ _ __ legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail!
Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional.
: (I still prefer ~, but acknowledge that this is just bikeshed painting.)
Bikesheds need to be painted occasionally.
Larry
: Hey, that would make _ _ __ legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail!
Now we just need to make ... ___ ... mean something exceptional.
Just download the Bleach.pm module from the CPAN.
It includes Morse.pm.
Damian
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
And I'm tired of hearing the argument that Perl programmers can't get
used to a different operator for concatenation. I know better--after
all, Perl is probably what got them used to . in the first place. If
you can teach dogs to
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:45:02AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
I think many of us are resigned to losing . for concatination; I know
I can live with that. I just don't want to have this result in ~, ^,
or any other C-style punctuation operator getting renamed.
That's my position. I'd rather
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
I'd rather it be cc or _ (I didn't like the underscore at first,
but it's grown on me a little)
Comparing ~ and _ to available editors markup marks, _ is closer
to the sideways () that an editor might use to indicate that two words
should be joined together. Tilde
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:19:40 GMT, Fred Heutte wrote:
Yes, I know ~ is the bitwise negation operator. Have you EVER used it?
Yes. A lot.
But there is no conflict. ~ is currently just an unary operator, while
your use would be as a binary operator (are those the correct terms?).
For example, in
Bart Lateur's response summarizes well what I've heard so far
from responses both to the list and privately:
(1) Yes, ~ *is* somewhat used in its current role as the bitwise
negation (complement) operator.
(2) No, that doesn't appear to overlap my proposal for its use
as a successor
Fred Heutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A vote against the proposed switches, for an unbearably lazy (ok,
selfish) reason. Having to use the shift key with any non-alphanumeric
keypress always feels like a lot of extra work. This is why I have long
avoided underscores in variable names.
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Now, it may be that all the We should use . people are just keeping
: quiet, or think it's obvious why this is a benefit, but I'm unconvinced.
: Again, I'm open-minded, but the only argument I've really heard is to
: make Perl more Java/Python-like. This doesn't sway me at
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:35:24AM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
Bart Lateur's response summarizes well what I've heard so far
from responses both to the list and privately:
(1) Yes, ~ *is* somewhat used in its current role as the bitwise
negation (complement) operator.
(2) No, that
A vote against the proposed switches, for an unbearably lazy (ok,
selfish) reason. Having to use the shift key with any non-alphanumeric
keypress always feels like a lot of extra work. This is why I have long
avoided underscores in variable names. (This is the same reason
I avoid = which not
Graham Barr wrote:
You don't get it.
We are not looking for a single char to replace -
We WANT to use .
With complete respect here, I'm still not convinced this is true.
Specifically, what the value of we is. It hardly sounds like
everyone's united on this point. In fact, I've counted
Eric Roode wrote:
What is it about . that seems to inspire allergic reactions in people?
Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
No, more like . is already used for something. The only reason I
It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods)
more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl
at work here.
So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for -
$mydsn-Sql($mysqlstmt . $moresql) ;
$mydsn~Sql($mysqlstmt . $moresql) ;
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
: It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods)
: more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl
: at work here.
:
: So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for -
:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods)
more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl
at work here.
So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for -
Larry Wall wrote:
Okay, but it's just as many characters to say - as it is \., y'know.
Yep. But I'll plead rule #1 for myself, and let it go.
(The other thought I had was that slashes might be nice, since
some filesystem hierarchies use it. But then the division op
gets squeeged.
Hm. Maybe
Branden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Use $obj.method instead of $obj-method :
The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms
and VBisms to our pretty C/C++-oid Perl? Why brake compatibility with
Perl 5 code (and Perl 5 programmers) for a zero net gain?
$obj.method
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
Branden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Use $obj.method instead of $obj-method :
The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms
and VBisms to our pretty C/C++-oid Perl? Why brake compatibility with
Perl 5 code (and Perl 5
David M Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
The switch from - to . makes perfect sense from a C perspective if we're
turning objects into first-class entities rather than pointers; think
about a struct versus a pointer to a struct.
- makes you remember that
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
David M Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What's wrong with using both? You could use - if you're working with a
reference to an object, and you could use . if you're working with the
object itself.
It seems relatively unlikely in the course of
At 06:34 AM 4/24/2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
David M Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
The switch from - to . makes perfect sense from a C perspective if we're
turning objects into first-class entities rather than pointers; think
about a struct
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:38:58AM -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
Well, right now in Perl, an object *is* a reference.
No. An object is a referent. Two blessed references can refer to the
same data; however, that's only one object.
--
teco /dev/audio
- Ignatios Souvatzis
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:38:58AM -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
Well, right now in Perl, an object *is* a reference.
No. An object is a referent. Two blessed references can refer to the
same data; however, that's only one object.
Oops, that's what
From: Russ Allbery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
David M Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
It seems relatively unlikely in the course of normal Perl
that you're going to end up with very many references to
objects.
Well, right now in Perl, an
Branden writes:
: I'm starting to be a bit worried with what I'm reading...
:
: 1) Use $obj.method instead of $obj-method :
:
: The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms and
: VBisms to our pretty C/C++-oid Perl? Why brake compatibility with Perl 5
: code (and
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:16:57PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Branden writes:
: I'm starting to be a bit worried with what I'm reading...
:
: 1) Use $obj.method instead of $obj-method :
:
: The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms and
: VBisms to our pretty
On 4/23/01 4:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
What is it about . that seems to inspire allergic reactions in people?
Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
I don't mind it, but I always imagined:
Larry Wall wrote:
Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
I'm not opposed to the change, but I want to make one point:
certain characters (like dot) are special in regexes, so
when you want to search
John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 4/23/01 4:16 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
What is it about . that seems to inspire allergic reactions in people?
Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
I
33 matches
Mail list logo
