Sorry for the one-month-old response, but this message fell between the
cracks and I was just reviewing all my old new mail
In a message dated Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Me writes:
Somebody fairly recently recommended some decent fixed-width
typefaces.
I think it may have been MJD, but I can't
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, I wrote:
why not simply extend pattern-matching in a similar way to substr, making it
an L-value, so that one gets
$str ~ /[aeiou]+/ = vowels($)
or
$str ~ /\d/ {hyper-symbol}= (0) x {size-of-LHS-array};
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Larry Wall replied:
Problem
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:02:44 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Martin D Kealey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We don't in general have a let on the front of assignment statements; why
should this type of assignment be any different? (Do we want a let keyword?
Personally I don't think so, but what do others think?)
This is exactly what I wanted .= for.
@array .= splice(2,0,$element); # in-place, @array = @array.splice
@new = @array.splice(2,0,$element);
$sentence .= lcfirst;
The semantics are pretty clear, then it's just up to the compiler to optimize
it for in-place. Perhaps functions could
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
Or one could define a copy-the-invoke method call operator (say, C+.):
As a rule I prefer to see safe operations have short names and
dangergous operations with longer ones. In this context that means copy
gets the short name and in place gets the
Deborah Pickett wrote:
Which looks better?
if ($a == 1|2|3 || $b eq x|y|z)
or
if ($a == 1||2||3 | $b eq x||y||z
?
No question thatthe former works better. Lower precedence operators govern
larger chunks, and so should themselves be larger (i.e. more easily detected).
I just need some
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
It's possible the syntax for substitution should be wrapped around the syntax
for matching, whatever that turns out to be.
That strikes me as promising...
Going back to Perl5 for a moment, we have
substr($str,$start,$len) = $newstr
why not simply
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
print 'He said '_($statement ~ s/\.$//)_', but we didn't believe him.';
I'm not sure exactly what the semantics would be, but somehow =~ without the =
seems appealing...it's always
Damian Conway wrote:
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it return to that role, now that
it's not needed elsewhere. And, of course, that would actually be:
$x ~ $y string concatentation
$x ~= $ystring append
~$x stringification
...
$str =~
Larry,
As long as you're trying to figure out how to shoehorn in the last few
available punctuation symbols, and thinking about if there are any
bracketers left, I wondered if there was a chance of a chunking operator
for literate programming? So you can do something like this, if
were the
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 11:22 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
But we also have to balance it against the desirability of using ~ for
concatenation. Requiring whitespace around _ is a bit of a
rationalization
after the fact, and ~ escapes that problem in most cases.
So (w/out whitespaces):
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 10:34 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
On the other hand, the current rule for recognizing the *end* of a
name in the style of operator:=+ is to go till the next whitespace,
on the assumption that we'll never have (shudder) whitespace operators.
Oooh, I nominate
From: Angel Faus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:54:09 +0200
All this ones fit more with the concept of mystical analogy hinted
by =~ than with the plain similarity that one would expect from
like
True. Can't say I like, um, like.
Oh, and =~ looks much more intimidating,
Or we could go with Valspeak:
$a is like $b and stuff
At the moment I like like the best, actually...
Hmmm... I could actually see like in a more active role. Along the
lines of:
my str $string;
my $other_string is like $string;
Analogous to saying:
my str $other_string
Except that
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: Also, this brings to mind the one thing I actually remember about
: Sather, and as long as we're discussing operators...
:
: Will we have similar to Sather's ::=? That was essentially the
: statically type this variable at run-time based on the type
At the moment I like like the best, actually...
like is beautiful for old-style regex matching, but I find it
confusing for the new smart abilities:
$varlike Class:Foo # $var is instance of Class:Foo
$item like %hash # %hash{$item} is true
$digit like (0..10) #
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
:
: Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
: s// without changing the variable.
:
: I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of Cs would do.
The problem with defining
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: Maybe , my question really is , how perl will behave if I will do
:
: sub operator:=+ (str $x, str $y) { system( $x | $y ) } ;
:
: so this is more question of qrammar ?
The general rule in most lexers has always been that it grabs the
longest token it can
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
: Which looks better?
: if ($a == 1|2|3 || $b eq x|y|z)
: or
: if ($a == 1||2||3 | $b eq x||y||z)
: ?
I think disjunctions of data values should be | and disjunctions of expressions
should be ||, so that the bigger concept has the bigger
Brent Dax wrote:
Can the new nefarious use be concat? Pretty please?
On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 07:46 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
I guess the only concern is the potential for nasty surprises between:
$str =~ s/a/b/; substitute a for b in $str
and:
$str ~= s/a/b/; substitute
Larry Wall wrote:
On 20 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Seems like not too long ago we were short of punctuation symbols,
: and now you've got a spare one lying around.
Pity there's no extra brackets lying around without going to
Unicode...
Well if C~ were made the hyper prefix (squiggly
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:$str1 ~ $str2# $str1 =~ m/$str2/
That would be a smart match, not m/$str2/.
:$str ~ /foo/ # $str1 =~ m/foo/
That would work.
:$str2 = ($str ~ /foo/bar/); # perform subst, assign result to $str2
:
:
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:59:00AM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Noone ever guesses that =~ means matching
That's because it doesn't. =~ means something more akin to apply
but it's only valid for the three m//, s///, tr/// ops. That'll
change in perl 6 though :-)
If anything, I'd almost
In 'C', we have:
a = b+c;
In Perl, we can have:
$a = $b$c;
(Parseable as $a = $b operator:spacespace operator:tab
operator:spacespace $c;)
Oh frabjous day!
=Austin
--- David Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 10:34 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
On
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 02:52 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
In 'C', we have:
a = b+c;
In Perl, we can have:
$a = $b$c;
(Parseable as $a = $b operator:spacespace operator:tab
operator:spacespace $c;)
Oh frabjous day!
Good Lord, you're sicker than I am!
:-D
David
--
PROTECTED]
Cc: Larry Wall; fearcadi; Damian Conway; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: perl6 operator precedence table
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 02:52 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
In 'C', we have:
a = b+c;
In Perl, we can have:
$a = $b$c;
(Parseable as $a = $b
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: Going back to Perl5 for a moment, we have
:
: substr($str,$start,$len) = $newstr
:
: why not simply extend pattern-matching in a similar way to substr, making it
: an L-value, so that one gets
:
: $str ~ /[aeiou]+/ = vowels($)
:
: or
:
:
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:14:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Luke
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
! the way people expect, I fear.
-Miko
On top of which, Damian has expressed an interest in ! for a
superpositional xor.
Which would behave how, exactly?
Well, that's still a matter for conjecture.
N-ary xor isn't particularly useful, because binary xor naturally generalizes
to: an odd number of these N operands are true. (Hint:
Brent Dax wrote:
Can the new nefarious use be concat? Pretty please?
There was a brief period 18 months ago when tilde *was* the designated
Perl 6 concatenation operator.
I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it return to that role, now that
it's not needed elsewhere. And, of course, that would
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of Cs would do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement string,
and returns a
Damian Conway wrote:
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to
let me do an
s// without changing the variable.
I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of Cs would
do.
That is, it takes a string, a pattern, and a replacement
Damian wrote:
(b) the symmetry of:
Logical: || !!
Bitwise:. .| .!
Superpositional:| !
is important...mnemonically, DWIMically, and aesthetically.
When I read
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-17 at 22:52:49, Smylers wrote:
... I initially misread the bar as an exclamation mark. I realize
that this is a sample size of one ...
Make that a sample size of two.
Well, not really. (Presumably there are many other people who also read
Larry's mail
Larry Wall wrote:
$a .! $b # bitwise xor
$a ! $b # logical xor
! $b # logical not
I like the notion that binary ! means that the two sides are sharing
one not. That's the definition of XOR in a nutshell.
I like that too. It also means that C!! and C.!! become the
Somebody fairly recently recommended some decent fixed-width
typefaces.
I think it may have been MJD, but I can't find the reference right now
(could be at work).
Michael Schwern recently suggested Monaco,
Neep or, if you can find them, Mishawaka or ProFont.
I investigated and found this link
Me wrote:
Somebody fairly recently recommended some decent fixed-width
typefaces. I think it may have been MJD ...
Michael Schwern recently suggested Monaco, Neep or, if you can find
them, Mishawaka or ProFont.
Ah, yes. That's what I was failing to recollect. (Apologies to both
MJD
: It's rare enough to need bitwise things in Perl 5 (outside golf). I'm
: hoping that it'll be even rarer in Perl 6, as better interfaces are
: designed for the things which at present require flipping individual
: bits.
I almost wonder if it's wrong to waste ~ on it...
That would be an
Shapiro, Jonathan:
# Well, let's look at a few possibilities:
#
# 1)if( $vec bit| $mask bit $mask2 )
#
# 2)if( $vec b| $mask b $mask2 )
#
# 3)if( $vec |b $mask b $mask2 )
#
# 4)if( $vec |bit $mask bit $mask2 )
What's wrong with 'bitand' and 'bitor' (or even
On 16 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: : $x ~ $y # bitwise and
: : $x ~| $y # bitwise or
: :
: : ~!$x # bitwise not
:
: I think I like that. Except now we'll get things like:
:
: x ^~|= y;
:
: Hmm...and then there's:
:
: $a ~? $b ~: $c
:
: I
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: It's rare enough to need bitwise things in Perl 5 (outside golf).
I'm
: hoping that it'll be even rarer in Perl 6, as better interfaces are
: designed for the things which at present require flipping individual
: bits.
I almost
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: Shapiro, Jonathan:
: # Well, let's look at a few possibilities:
: #
: # 1) if( $vec bit| $mask bit $mask2 )
: #
: # 2) if( $vec b| $mask b $mask2 )
: #
: # 3) if( $vec |b $mask b $mask2 )
: #
: # 4) if( $vec |bit $mask bit $mask2 )
:
Larry Wall wrote:
$a .| $b # bitwise or
$a .! $b # bitwise xor
On glancing down your list I initially misread the bar as an exclamation
mark. I realize that this is a sample size of one, but certainly in
this terminal font those only differ by a single pixel and it's possible
that
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:57:22PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I find those difficult to read--too wordy. At the moment I'm leaning towards
$a .| $b # bitwise or
$a . $b # bitwise and
$a .! $b # bitwise xor
.! $b # bitwise not
$a ! $b # logical xor
! $b
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
: It's rare enough to need bitwise things in Perl 5 (outside golf). I'm
: hoping that it'll be even rarer in Perl 6, as better interfaces are
: designed for the things which at present require flipping individual
: bits.
I almost wonder if
On Thursday, October 17, 2002, at 11:49 AM, Shapiro, Jonathan wrote:
Well, let's look at a few possibilities:
1) if( $vec bit| $mask bit $mask2 )
2) if( $vec b| $mask b $mask2 )
3) if( $vec |b $mask b $mask2 )
4) if( $vec |bit $mask bit $mask2 )
I think I would have an easier time
On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 04:55 PM, Smylers wrote:
How about keeping caret for xor?
$a ~^ $b # bitwise xor
$a ^^ $b # logical xor
Hm, the seagull operator?
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2002-10-17 at 22:52:49, Smylers wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
$a .| $b# bitwise or
$a .! $b# bitwise xor
On glancing down your list I initially misread the bar as an exclamation
mark. I realize that this is a sample size of one, but certainly in
this terminal
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: As a productive prefix, it has limits, but there are actually very few
: operators that make sense to be bitified, and none of them look like a
: method name.
:
: Could users redefine how the prefixes work and get the productions for
: free?
Larry Wall wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of:
$x $y
$x ||| $y
I very much like the new suggested uses for C and C|, and making
the rarely-useful bitwise ops be longer to type.
But I'm not keen on trippled symbols: I reckon it's two easier to muddle
them with their
: But then there's ~ vs ~~~ too.
:
: That gave me an idea. What about using the tilde as the first character
: in bitwise ops?
:
: $x ~ $y # bitwise and
: $x ~| $y # bitwise or
:
: ~!$x # bitwise not
I think I like that. Except now we'll get things like:
x ^~|= y;
Larry Wall wrote:
: $x ~ $y # bitwise and
: $x ~| $y # bitwise or
:
: ~!$x # bitwise not
I think I like that. Except now we'll get things like:
x ^~|= y;
Hmm...and then there's:
$a ~? $b ~: $c
I don't think they're too problematic. Most people shouldn't
And I really do like | for any(). And I can see using it like this:
cases ^|= newcases;
to mean
for cases | newcases - $x is rw | $y {
$x = any($x, $y);
}
but then probably we should also have
cases = cases ^| newcases; is same as ( cases ^|= newcases; )
cases = cases
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: in
: http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg11440.html
: Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm wondering whether the single ones could indicate parallel streams.
: We had the difficulty of specifying whether the Cfor loop should
: terminate on the
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Aaron Crane wrote:
: Luke Palmer writes:
: Some of my students want to go:
:
: if ($x == 1 || 2) { ... }
:
: Now they can:
:
: if $x == 1 | 2 { ... }
:
: I like that a lot. (Some of my students also want to do that.)
:
: You can write an equivalent
in
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg11440.html
Larry Wall wrote:
I'm wondering whether the single ones could indicate parallel streams.
We had the difficulty of specifying whether the Cfor loop should
terminate on the shorter or the longer stream. We could say that |
in
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg11451.html
Larry Wall wrote:
for cases ^| newcases - $x is rw | $y {...}
do I understand correctly that what happens is (more or less) --
any($a,$b) := any($x,$y)
?
arcadi
Luke Palmer writes:
Some of my students want to go:
if ($x == 1 || 2) { ... }
Now they can:
if $x == 1 | 2 { ... }
I like that a lot. (Some of my students also want to do that.)
You can write an equivalent thing in Icon:
if x = (0 | 1)
though (if memory serves) the
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Dan Kogai wrote:
: Objection, your honor.
:
: perl5 ($x $y) might be uncommon enough to justify this. But how
: about = vs. =, |= vs. ||= ? Those are both used very often so by
: saving one symbol we lose consistency.
Ouch. You're right. That's a bit of a problem for
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm wondering whether the single ones could indicate parallel streams.
We had the difficulty of specifying whether the Cfor loop should
terminate on the shorter or the longer stream. We could say that |
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
I was thinking more along the lines of:
$x $y
$x ||| $y
This isn't Perl; this is merely some language that looks a bit like
it. I can understand the attraction for confusing anyone who comes
from a standard Unix language background, but I'm
On 11 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: I was thinking more along the lines of:
:
: $x $y
: $x ||| $y
:
: This isn't Perl; this is merely some language that looks a bit like
: it. I can understand the attraction for confusing anyone who comes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
I'm not sure either, and that's why I'm thinking about it. :-)
Phew.
--
Only two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
At 3:55 PM -0700 10/11/02, Larry Wall wrote:
On 11 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: I was thinking more along the lines of:
:
: $x $y
: $x ||| $y
:
: This isn't Perl; this is merely some language that looks a bit like
: it. I can understand
On Friday, Oct 11, 2002, at 23:21 Asia/Tokyo, Aaron Crane wrote:
Vaguely heretical, I know, but I'd be inclined to do something like
this:
Perl 5 Proposed Perl 6
$x $y $x $y
$x || $y $x | $y
$x $ybitand($x, $y)
$x | $ybitor($x, $y)
Objection, your honor.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: I think that, for me at least, it'll be close enough to C to be
: really confusing. (I already have the problem of leaving parens off
: of my function calls when I write XS code...) There's a certain
: appeal to not having to swap in
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 05:03 PM, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
humor
Uh-oh: my life is gonna suck. I've spent days hunting obscure bugs
that were caused by a single mistyped character. Now I'll be spending
days hunting obscure
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:21:38PM +0100, Aaron Crane wrote:
Vaguely heretical, I know, but I'd be inclined to do something like this:
Perl 5 Proposed Perl 6
$x $y $x $y
$x || $y $x | $y
Larry just added nice character doubling ops to be more consistent and
here you want to
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:21:38PM +0100, Aaron Crane wrote:
: Vaguely heretical, I know, but I'd be inclined to do something like this:
:
:Perl 5 Proposed Perl 6
:$x $y $x $y
:$x || $y $x | $y
:
: Larry just added nice
Larry Wall wrote:
[...]
Maybe we should ... to mean and so on forever:
a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
might be handier in real life.
No more yada-yada-yada?
Brad
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
term (which is how we recognize prefix operators). The one exception I can
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
: put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
: else.
Could perhaps unify with C... Wouldn't hurt for it to be
non-associative like C...
'Is'
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: : but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
: : put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
: : else.
:
: Could perhaps unify with C...
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
: and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
: term (which is how we recognize
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Larry Wall writes:
If only we had Unicode editors, we could just force everyone to use
the infinity symbol where they mean it. It seems a shame to make a
special case of the .. operator. Maybe we should ... to mean and so
on forever:
a[0...;
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:35:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Would that mean that three other special cases of postfix .. might exist?
:
: 0..; # useful for return 0..;
I bet the
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
might be handier in real life. (It means to exclude the endpoint,
so 0...4 is the same as 0..3. But then, that's kind of odd too.)
humor
Uh-oh: my life is
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brad Hughes wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: [...]
: Maybe we should ... to mean and so on forever:
:
: a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
:
: Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
: might be handier in real life.
:
: No more yada-yada-yada?
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
I've always wondered what the ! postfix operator means. The mathematicians
think they know. :-)
The Ruby folks think they know. They're method name conventions.
From Programming Ruby
Methods that act as queries are often
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: perl6 operator precedence
:
: leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
: left. and unary .
:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
: similar to the one in perlop.pod.
:
: This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
: Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
: for :
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
: context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
: '_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
: anyone come up with a use
I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
similar to the one in perlop.pod.
This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
for : (adverb) or 'is' and 'but' are quite right.
perl6
- Original Message -
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:03 PM
Subject: perl6 operator precedence table
I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
similar to the one in perlop.pod.
This is what I have
Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
perl6 operator precedence
leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
left. and unary .
nonassoc++ --
leftis but
This
86 matches
Mail list logo
