On May 29, 2009, at 22:33 , Jon Lang wrote:
also is an ordered, short-circuiting version of (and thus
all). For some time now, I've wanted an analog for '|' and 'any' -
but the only name I can think of for it would be 'else', which has
some obvious clarity issues.
I have seen x (alt. y) used
On May 30, 2009, at 15:38 , Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps something like
use *;
should pull in all the Unicode operators. Which if course means that
any golfing would start with
*;
⨷ perhaps? It only makes sense that a Unicode operator be used to
pull in all of Unicode.
--
brandon
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH allbery-at-ece.cmu.edu |Perl 6| wrote:
⨷ perhaps? It only makes sense that a Unicode operator be used to
pull in all of Unicode.
Bravo.
If you can't type that, you won't find it useful!
Buddha Buck wrote:
Secondly, regarding the Bool type, I think it would be useful for Perl 6 to
define the full complement of dyadic logical operators, of which I count a
few that you don't appear to already have. Probably the best place is in
Synopsis 32.
There are 16 dyadic logical
Darren ():
Firstly, regarding the string replication ops as documented in Synopsis 3,
'x' and 'xx', I'm wondering whether it might be better to have something
that incorporates a '~', since that operation is about catenation.
Would perhaps '~*' work better than 'x' to signify better what the
Thoughts:
Your nomenclature makes me think you are coming from an APL background.
!=== is already generated from ===, and compares the identity of any two
objects. It works on binary values since they are value types, but
that's not the proper usage, and Perl separates out the concerns.
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Your nomenclature makes me think you are coming from an APL background.
Actually, I've never used APL.
The main influences for the terminology I use, besides Perl which is my favorite
general purpose language, is the field of relational databases, both the SQL
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:06:46PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
Larry, did you choose = for assignment and == etc for comparison because
you thought that looked prettier, or because that was the C/etc
convention that you decided to copy?
Neither beauty nor convention, really. I chose it for
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 08:45:06PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
So does anyone else have thoughts on that?
Actually, I think ~x is kinda ugly. And I like the mnemonic value of
x returning one thing and xx returning multiple things. And in the
bitwise ops ~ doesn't indicate postprocessing. And
John M. Dlugosz said [off-list]:
Darren Duncan darren-at-darrenduncan.net |Perl 6| wrote:
I also know that
given its current design, === and !=== just happen to have the same
semantics as logical xnor and xor when given 2 Bool inputs, and so
they serve the purpose. Having distinct xnor and
On 2009-May-29, at 7:53 pm, Darren Duncan wrote:
Thirdly, there are I'm sure a number of other aliases that could be
added to other ops, such as ≤ and ≥ for = and =, and ≠ for
one of the inequality operators, although that last one would
probably make more sense if = was the equality test
It occurs to me that, while I don't want to pull in all the
possible Unicode operators by default, we should make it easy
to do so. Perhaps something like
use *;
should pull in all the Unicode operators. Which if course means that
any golfing would start with
*;
to pull in all the
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:09:01PM -0600, David Green wrote:
I think that one's ambiguous as to whether $bar exists as a key or a
value.
$bar ∈ @foo; $bar ∈ %foo.keys; $bar ∈ %foo.values; ∃ %foo{bar}
Generally when hashes have been used as sets we've taken the keys
to be the set, not the
David Green david.green-at-telus.net |Perl 6| wrote:
On 2009-May-29, at 7:53 pm, Darren Duncan wrote:
Thirdly, there are I'm sure a number of other aliases that could be
added to other ops, such as ≤ and ≥ for = and =, and ≠ for one of
the inequality operators, although that last one would
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 04:50:02PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Note that ≥ and ≤ are bidi mirroring characters in the Unicode
Properties. So if someone were crazy enough to use them as brackets,
then the digraph equivalent should work as well, right?
No, they'd only function as digraphs
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Indeed, getting close enough is one of the underlying design themes
of Perl 6. As to whether we're close to do the operator aliasing in
a mostly digraphic fashion, I'm not sure. Currently a macro for an
infix would be given the AST of the left
I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce some
ideas.
Firstly, regarding the string replication ops as documented in Synopsis 3, 'x'
and 'xx', I'm wondering whether it might be better to have something that
incorporates a '~', since that operation
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce
some ideas.
Firstly, regarding the string replication ops as documented in Synopsis 3,
'x' and 'xx', I'm wondering whether it
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jon Lang wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce
some ideas.
Firstly, regarding the string replication ops as documented in Synopsis 3,
'x'
Jon Lang wrote:
I wouldn't mind 'x' becoming '~x' and 'xx' becoming 'x'; it strikes me
as a lot more intuitive - and I've wanted to see this done for a while
now. I suppose that you might also introduce a '?x' and/or a '+x' to
complete the set, though for the life of me I can't think of how
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
How about if xx became x, and then we did things like:
[~] @list x $count
...to get the string replciation?
Maybe you meant this?
[~] $item x $count
I like that a lot.
And we could still have ~x as a shorthand for that specific case since it would
Resending to list
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Darren Duncan dar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce
some ideas.
Secondly, regarding the Bool type, I think it would be useful for Perl 6 to
define the full
Darren Duncan wrote:
Side note: one thing that I recently learned concerning implication
operators is that the direction of the implication doesn't necessarily
follow the direction of the arrow. In particular, A if B is A←B,
and A only if B is A→B: in both of the original statements, the
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Darren Duncan wrote:
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
How about if xx became x, and then we did things like:
[~] @list x $count
...to get the string replciation?
Maybe you meant this?
[~] $item x $count
No, I'm pretty sure I meant what I wrote. But if x
24 matches
Mail list logo
