On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 11:45:55AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: at first I didn't get what you mean, but now I must admit it does make
: sense and looks smart too.
I can be very persuasive when I'm right, as well as the rest of the time. :-)
Larry
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
with a named abstraction is not terribly useful. The "whichness"
of C happens subconsciously, whereas having a named hash forces
As I said in my other mail, the more I think of this the more it seems to
me to be reasonable and even "natural". It's "which?-ne
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
Except that only one of these variables' meanings is actually
associated with subs. And I kind of like to read the C as "which".
So if we actually make use of our sigils, we get possibilities like this:
[snip useful examples]
at first I didn't get what you me
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
And FWIW, I kinda like $& even with the over-done & :-)
me too!
Michele
--
[...] is like requiring to play tennis with a square ball.
Which admittedly makes the game more interesting.
- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta in comp.text.tex (edited)
On Sep 17, 2004, at 12:21 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
No, not the verbs, the uppercase nouns we see like
=begin COMMENT
...
=end COMMENT
Oh, I wasn't sure, because in the Synopses you've been using propercase
for =head1 POD. But maybe it's not the subjects of the header and item
type verbs
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 12:19:10PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
: On Sep 17, 2004, at 12:06 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >I originally made them lowercase because they were $=line variables
: >and I didn't want them to conflict with POD names that are typically
: >uppercase, and use of an C<=> seconda
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 03:16:24PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: For that matter, what's wrong with $__ as a sigil, as in $__LINE__, et
: al. It combines the "you can use it as a variable" with the "leading
: underscores are magic" memes, and doesn't impose any wierd learning curve.
I am unlik
On Sep 17, 2004, at 12:06 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
I originally made them lowercase because they were $=line variables
and I didn't want them to conflict with POD names that are typically
uppercase, and use of an C<=> secondary sigil for POD is a no-brainer.
s/uppercase/lowercase/ ?
David
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:35:46PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
: Therefore should:
:
: $?os Be which operating system it is being compiled on
: $*os Be which operating system it is being executed on
:
: Some of the other special variables may have a similar dual personality.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 07:35:46PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
: Therefore should:
:
: $?os Be which operating system it is being compiled on
: $*os Be which operating system it is being executed on
:
: Some of the other special variables may have a similar dual personality.
Presumably. Whi
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote:
> : $?osWhich operating system am I operating on
>
> Again, which OS am I compiled on, or at best, which OS does the compiler
> think I'm compiling for, in the case of cross-compilation.
>
Therefore should:
$?os Be which operating system it is being c
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 11:59:09AM +0200, Thomas Seiler wrote:
: $?parrot Which version of parrot is perl running on
$?parrotversion would be which version of parrot we were compiled on.
$*parrotversion would be which version of parrot we are running on.
: $?parrot_runloop Which runloop i
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:25:08AM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
: Maybe there are some more...
:
: $?perlWhich version of perl am I in
It would be "Which version of Perl am I compiled with?" But $?perlversion
would much clearer. I suppose the same could be said for $?subname.
: And re
On Fri, Sep 17, 2004 at 09:41:37AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly, but is this really that useful to
: have such shortcuts? I presume that there will be alternate ways to
: access the same information (like maybe a special hash
: (%*WHICH{'package'} and %*WHIC
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:35:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Except that only one of these variables' meanings is actually
> associated with subs. And I kind of like to read the C as "which".
> So if we actually make use of our sigils, we get possibilities like this:
>
> $?fileWhich file
Richard Proctor wrote:
Maybe there are some more...
$?perl Which version of perl am I in
$?parrot Which version of parrot is perl running on
$?parrot_runloop Which runloop is running ?
etc...
>And relating to the outside world
>
> $?os Which operating system am I operating on
$?pid
On Fri 17 Sep, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> $?fileWhich file am I in?
> $?lineWhich line am I at?
> $?package Which package am I in?
> @?package Which packages am I in?
> $?module Which module am I in?
> @?module Which modules am I in?
> $?class Which class am I in
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 01:44:03PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:07:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something
: > complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently
: > came
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 01:40:47PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: > I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something
: > complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently
: > came available. :-)
:
: Hmm, $& is pretty good, and
Larry Wall writes:
> I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something
> complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently
> came available. :-)
Hmm, $& is pretty good, and it's associated with subs mnemonically, just
as $= is associated with lin
- Original Message -
From: Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: Still about subroutines...
> Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-09-16 13:44 (-0500):
> > Speaking of which ... why is it that $?foo and became
> $<&
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-09-16 13:44 (-0500):
> Speaking of which ... why is it that $?foo and became $<>
> and <> respectively?
perlcheat is one page. I hope that when Perl 6 is around, I can
summarize all uses of << and >> on one page. The second page will be for
the rest of the synta
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:07:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I like $-, $+, and $? the best. Probably should save $- and $+ for something
> complimentary, which leaves $?. It's visually distinctive, and recently
> came available. :-)
Speaking of which ... why is it that $?foo and became $<>
a
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:02:18AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: The new alternative is MY.sub. I suppose that could return the current
: actual sub, so if you're using a pointy sub you have to say MY.block or
: something. But it's one of those two.
Or something resembling them. I'm still pining
Michele Dondi writes:
> Speaking of subs, and especially recursive ones which have been
> mentioned en passant earlier, I have another question "of mine": I
> know that in the vast majority of cases this won't be useful in any
> way, but in the body of a (possibly anonymous) sub/block, will there
>
Speaking of subs, and especially recursive ones which have been mentioned
en passant earlier, I have another question "of mine": I know that in the
vast majority of cases this won't be useful in any way, but in the body of
a (possibly anonymous) sub/block, will there be some sort of identifier to
26 matches
Mail list logo
