On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 04:12:12PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> Nobody has the least bit of trouble understanding that WITHIN the for
> loop, the "default value" just changed from whatever it was outside.
Well, C is a topicalizer, and always has been, even before we had a
name for it, so th
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:11:13AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> >
> > > C is a conditional like C, not a topicalizer.
> >
> > Right, it's a topicalizee, the victim of topicalization.
> > And so it uses $_ or $x or $! or whatever the current to
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 10:11:13AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> > C is a conditional like C, not a topicalizer.
>
> Right, it's a topicalizee, the victim of topicalization. And so it uses
> $_ or $x or $! or whatever the current topic is.
i.e. a "defaulting construct" or "topic sensitive k
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still not convinced of your basic point, that it would be a good
> thing to have C aliasing $_. Variations on whether it does it
> automatically or at my request and how don't change the fundamental
> concept. C is a conditional like C, not a to
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 08:02:08AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> BTW, C doesn't alias $_ always. That's why things like the example
> below are possible.
Yes. C and C will only alias $_ when they are not aliasing a
named variable.
> Hmm. Suppose we force C to alias $_, but give the coder o
It's amazing what a night will do. See bottom.
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:20:48PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> > Austin Hastings:
> > #
> > # Which, then, would you like:
> > #
> > # To implicitly localize $_, losing access to an outer version,
> > # o
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 02:20:48PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
> Austin Hastings:
> #
> # Which, then, would you like:
> #
> # To implicitly localize $_, losing access to an outer version,
> # or to have to change between implicit and explicit operations?
Well, I like the idea of having C and the C o
Austin Hastings:
# --- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# > On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 01:26:41PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
# > >
# > > Possibility B- when-blocks accept a -> operator, which if used
# > "naked"
# > > binds the current localizer to $_.
# >
# > I think if I had a choice be
Which, then, would you like:
To implicitly localize $_, losing access to an outer version,
or to have to change between implicit and explicit operations?
for @A {
for @B -> $x {
when /a/ { s/x/y/; }
}
}
What should that do?
=Austin
--- Allison Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tu
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 01:26:41PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> Possibility B- when-blocks accept a -> operator, which if used "naked"
> binds the current localizer to $_.
I think if I had a choice between
given $y -> $x {
when /a/ -> {...}
when /b/ -> {...}
...
}
The when keyword can use a localizer that makes its target obvious but
slightly counter-intuitive.
given $x {
when /a/ { ... }
}
The problem is operations within the when-block that might expect to
use $_, the defaultdefault variable.
given $x {
when /a/ { s/a/A/; }
}
After all, I used a def
11 matches
Mail list logo
