At 01:57 +0100 2003/02/04, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>In the tradition of Perl concision, I would like newline to be a
>statement terminator everywhere it can: that is when
> a) the parser expects an operator
> _and_ b) we are not in the middle of a parenthesised expression.
>
IMO this would
I'll just weigh in with my vote against this.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> In the tradition of Perl concision, I would like newline to be a
> statement terminator everywhere it can: that is when
>a) the parser expects an operator
> _and_ b) we are not in the middle of a
Allison Randal wrote:
> It's a balance, like everything else in design.
use Yin::Yang;
s/design/life/g;
A
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with stealing, er "borrowing" the good bits of
> reptiles though, is there?. I didn't think that perl was fussy about where
> it gets its inspiration from.
It isn't and never will be. We're openly friendly to all languages. But
Perl is also quite diff
arenthesised expression.
>
> Accessorily, it would also help people to switch back and forth
> between language that use newline as statement terminator and perl6:
> they will not be burn anymore when forgetting a semicolon.
>
> Semicolons are still allowed everywhere as statement termina
> print "---" # must read the next line to
> # figure out if new line is statement terminator or not
>if $condition";
Yes, let's expand that example, and assume the "semicolons optional
where obvious" proposal.
sub foo
{
print "abcde"
if $condition
{
print "fghij"
}
}
>> I don't mean to be abrupt here, especially seeing as how this list has
>> been so patient with some of my ideas but... PLEASE NO. The rules you
>> suggest for keeping track of when a semicolon is required sound more
>> confusing than the simple rule of "end of statement, put semicolon".
>
> As
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 08:19:29PM -0500, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>
> > In the tradition of Perl concision, I would like newline to be a
> > statement terminator everywhere it can: that is when
> >a) the parser expects an operator
>
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> NOTE TO ALLISON RANDAL: in your face-to-face meetings next week, please
> make sure that "Larry Wall" isn't really Guido van Rossum with a fake
> mustache.
Righto. No reptiles, only jewels and birds. And possibly the occasional
snark. ;)
Allison
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 06:11:23PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
[snip]
>
> See, this is the main, unPerlish thing you're doing. You're enforcing
> particular styles upon people, something Perl is proud of *not* doing.
>
> Let's not forget the often occurence of:
>
> $fh = open 'foobar'
>
> It would be trivial with a grammar munge to implement this (heck, I
> did it with a source filter in Perl 5). Surely CPAN6 (6PAN/CP6AN/??)
> will come out with one of these right off the bat, so you could do:
>
> use Grammar::ImplicitSemicolon;
>
> Or something like that, and be done with
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, [iso-8859-1] Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> In the tradition of Perl concision, I would like newline to be a
> statement terminator everywhere it can: that is when
>a) the parser expects an operator
> _and_ b) we are not in the middle of a parenthesised expression.
I don
>
> Multiline atomic statements just have to be broken at the right
> place to avoid to break them:
Sorry about my English. Let me reformulate.
When folding an atomic statement, it becomes two statements or its
meaning is unchanged depending if an operand is expected or not at the
position of th
> _and_ b) we are not in the middle of a parenthesised expression.
Can you say "Ruby"?
No, I think a semicolon should still be required to seperate
statements.
> Accessorily, it would also help people to switch back and forth
> between language that use newline as statement te
between language that use newline as statement terminator and perl6:
they will not be burn anymore when forgetting a semicolon.
Semicolons are still allowed everywhere as statement terminator
because empty statements are.
So, In the common case, oneliner atomic statements, the proposed rule
means: you
15 matches
Mail list logo
