On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 12:22:22 GMT, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Green writes:
I guess we could always use prepend/append, pull/pop.
No! C and C are a well-defined pair, not just in Perl, for
dealing with stacks; we should keep those as they are. (And no
synonyms, before somebody sugges
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 11:34:24 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though it's awfully tempting to fill in the holes in the periodic table:
>
> ($a, $b, $c) = @foo *<< 3;
>
> And then just say all the corresponding unaries default to 1 (or the arity
> of the left):
>
> $bit = +<<
stuff & grab :-)
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Original message --
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:45:22AM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : But I'd be willing to rename them to get/put.
>
> If I went with "get", the opposite
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 03:50:42PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:52:22AM -0700, Dan Brian wrote:
: >: >If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
: >: >and huffmaniacal reasons.
: >
: >
: Why? (I get the huffman, not
Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:52:22AM -0700, Dan Brian wrote:
: >If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
: >and huffmaniacal reasons.
Why? (I get the huffman, not the history.) Is it just a nod to unshift?
Given the existence of a unary = for abbrev
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:52:22AM -0700, Dan Brian wrote:
: >If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
: >and huffmaniacal reasons.
:
: But "get" has too strong a class accessor connotation in most OO.
:
: "unpull?" ;-)
Given the existence of a unary = for abbrevia
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 01:25:29PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
> Dan Brian wrote:
>
> >>If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
> >>and huffmaniacal reasons.
> >
> >
> >But "get" has too strong a class accessor connotation in most OO.
> >
> >"unpull?" ;-)
> >
> >
> push
Dan Brian wrote:
If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
and huffmaniacal reasons.
But "get" has too strong a class accessor connotation in most OO.
"unpull?" ;-)
pushf/popf. f is for "front".
But I still don't see anything wrong with shift/unshift.
I'd prefer to
If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
and huffmaniacal reasons.
But "get" has too strong a class accessor connotation in most OO.
"unpull?" ;-)
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:45:22AM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But I'd be willing to rename them to get/put.
If I went with "get", the opposite would be "unget" for both historical
and huffmaniacal reasons.
Larry
Smylers wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
But then are we willing to rename shift/unshift to pull/put?
Yes. C is a terrible name; when teaching Perl I feel
embarrassed on introducing it.
No!
But I'd be willing to rename them to get/put.
'Pull' is the opposite of 'push', but 'pop' already works.
David Green writes:
> I guess we could always use prepend/append, pull/pop.
No! C and C are a well-defined pair, not just in Perl, for
dealing with stacks; we should keep those as they are. (And no
synonyms, before somebody suggests any!)
Smylers
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
>But what we'd really like to do is: given the user knows what push/pop
>do, what would they *guess* to mean shift (I tend to think that this
>is a very good technique for naming).
>And, well, I'm thinking pull. So it's a t
It makes good sense to me -- if we're trying to move a piano from you
to
me then either you can push or your end or I can pull on my end: we're
operating on different ends of it, but the effect in both cases is
moving in one direction.
As a mnemonic for remembering which side push/pull operate on,
Dan Brian writes:
> Having push and pull operate on opposite ends of an array strikes me
> as more confusing than even shift.
It makes good sense to me -- if we're trying to move a piano from you to
me then either you can push or your end or I can pull on my end: we're
operating on different ends
If there's a willingness to rename shift/unshift, why not consider
going a bit further (and offend shell heritage) to note that pull/put
aren't really linguistically opposed either (unlike push/pull). Why
not
rename pop to pull, and use something like put/take for shift/unshift?
That goes way beyo
Dan Brian writes:
> If there's a willingness to rename shift/unshift, why not consider
> going a bit further (and offend shell heritage) to note that pull/put
> aren't really linguistically opposed either (unlike push/pull). Why not
> rename pop to pull, and use something like put/take for shift
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 23:33:24 -0700, Dan Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If there's a willingness to rename shift/unshift, why not consider
> going a bit further (and offend shell heritage) to note that pull/put
> aren't really linguistically opposed either (unlike push/pull). Why not
> rename pop
C's only virtue, IMHO, is that it's clearly the inverse of
C. But I think the spelling and aural relationship between
C, C, C, and C is clear enough to negate that.
But then, I'm a little biased.
Except that push and pull are logical opposites linguistically, but
not in standard CS parlance. coul
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes. C is a terrible name; when teaching Perl I feel
embarrassed on introducing it.
C's only virtue, IMHO, is that it's clearly the inverse of
C. But I think the spelling and aural relationship between
C, C, C, and C is cl
Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. C is a terrible name; when teaching Perl I feel
> embarrassed on introducing it.
C's only virtue, IMHO, is that it's clearly the inverse of
C. But I think the spelling and aural relationship between
C, C, C, and C is clear enough to negate that.
But the
Larry Wall writes:
> But then are we willing to rename shift/unshift to pull/put?
Yes. C is a terrible name; when teaching Perl I feel
embarrassed on introducing it.
Given the nature of many of the other changes in Perl 6, completely
changing regexps for example, renaming a couple of functions
22 matches
Mail list logo
