-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
The one in Perl 5 that stands out most was the cause for the only patch
I ever sent to p5p: the rand function. "rand $x" will give you a
uniformly distributed random number in [0, $x) for any $x EXCEPT 0. I
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 12:17 -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> At this point, you may as well use C<.records> (think C<$/> -- record
> separator):
>
>for $foo.records { ... }
>
> Then it'd be a small step to allow:
>
>for $foo.records :sep"," { ... }
> --or--
>for $foo.r
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Final blocks on statement-level constructs always imply semicolon
> precedence afterwards regardless of the position of the closing curly.
> Statement-level constructs are distinguished in the grammar by being
> declared in the statement syntactic group:
>
>
Larry Wall wrote:
=head1 Title
Synopsis 4: a Summary of Apocalypse 4
A little light reading is always good in the morning ;-)
To return a value from a pointy sub or bare closure, you either
just mention the value last that you want to return, or you can
use C. A C by default exits from the inne
On 8/19/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
>David Green writes:
> > Hang on -- should we be saying "for each $foo" or "for $foo.each"
> > anyway? We don't say "for @foo.each"; the iteration is implicit. So
> > I'm thinking it should be "for $foo" or "while next $foo".
>
>Well, C gives you
On 8/19/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
>It's hard to come up with an English word that means "next" in scalar
>context but "all" in list context.
I never know whether to name my arrays singular or plural, either. =)
But couldn't there be Two Ways To Do It? One "singular" name and on
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:45:37PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> BEGIN {...}*at compile time, ASAP
> CHECK {...}*at compile time, ALAP
>INIT {...}*at run time, ASAP
> END {...} at run time, ALAP
> FIRST {...}*at first block entry time
> ENTER
> Parameters are by default constant within the block. You can
> declare a parameter read/write by including the "C" trait.
> If you rely on C<$_> as the implicit parameter to a block, then
> then C<$_> is considered read/write by default. That is,
> the construct:
>
> for @foo {...}
>
> is a
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: It would be nice if rand behaved a bit more sanely in Perl 6. I can
: understand the reasoning for making rand 0 produce between 0 and 1, but
: that doesn't mean I have to like it.
What makes you think there was any "reasoning" in
Aaron Sherman writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > leave :from(Loop) :labelÂLINEÂ <== 1,2,3;
> > [...]
> > leave <== :foo:bar:baz(1) if $leaving;
>
> I know it's probably just me, but This section seems to suddenly rely on
> a lot more knowledge of the current state of Perl 6 syntax than I have.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:18:06AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Whither REDO {...} ? Or do we just manufacture that ourselves with
: NEXT?
Hmm, well, you can view C as just a C in disguise,
or as a C that suppresses the "while" check. But I think it's
seldom enough used that it doesn't r
David Green writes:
> Then I thought that maybe "for" doesn't need to work lazily (except that
> the conveniently just-posted Synopsis 4 confirms that it is supposed to
> be lazy). Or maybe "for" is only "as lazy as is reasonable", meaning if
> it knows how (e.g. if you're using an array or fil
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:04:48AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: > Parameters are by default constant within the block. You can
: > declare a parameter read/write by including the "C" trait.
: > If you rely on C<$_> as the implicit parameter to a block, then
: > then C<$_> is considered read/write by
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:49:17AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: method postcircumfix:<> ($self: *%opt) returns List {
: scalar $self.<*%opt>, $self.<*%opt> # [1]
: }
:
: [1] Look, Larry, I had to use C! Maybe we _do_ need to revive
: $()!
It's not clear to me that $() would h
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:12:37PM -0500, Peter Behroozi wrote:
: And to replace $/ we could have something like:
:
: for $foo.fetch :upto(",") { ... } #or
: for $foo.fetch :until(",") { ... }
I suppose in <>-ese, that could be one of:
for $foo.< :upto(",") > { ... } #or
for $foo.< :unti
I like that arguments will be readonly by default. But when I look at my
current code, I see that I would be typing " is rw" quite a lot, which in
my opinion is too long for a thing that occurs very often.
Every such situation in my code is a foreach loop. A thing that in Perl
6 will mostly be use
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:52:56PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Unfortunately, the only obvious one, 's', is taken.
I remind myself that 'S' is equally obvious, and not taken. Like _,
it suffers from spacing issues, but could be the ASCII backup for
the § character. (As Y is likely to be the ASCII
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:07:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: I'm proposing
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) <-> $foo, $bar, $xyzzy { ... }
: for %quux.kv <-> $key, $value { ... }
That'd probably work on the keys only if the hash was declared to have
object keys. At least in Perl 5, the ke
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
>
> for zip @a ¥ @b <-> { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
Shouldn't that be:
for zip @a, @b <-> { ... }
--or--
for @a ¥ @b <-> { ... }
?
--
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:39:35AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry, you're a genius.
Yeah, well, that and 150 cents'll get me a cup of coffee...
Larry
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:46:33PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
: >
: > for zip @a ¥ @b <-> { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
:
: Shouldn't that be:
:
: fo
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:49:46 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, a typo. Though it's not actually clear yet whether you have to
> write zips args with semicolons, which is why I partially switched
> to ¥ in midthink.
Just checking. I wondered if you'd introduced a new feature midt
Peter Behroozi wrote:
I'm not particular to any of the verbs used yet, but maybe that's
because I don't think of the <> as a general iterator, but more of a
gobbler-type creature (and formerly a globber, too). Could we try:
for $foo.fetch { ... } #or
for $foo.grab { ... } #or
for $foo.eat { ... }
Dan Hursh wrote:
Peter Behroozi wrote:
I'm not particular to any of the verbs used yet, but maybe that's
because I don't think of the <> as a general iterator, but more of a
gobbler-type creature (and formerly a globber, too). Could we try:
for $foo.fetch { ... } #or
for $foo.grab { ... } #or
for
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 14:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Dan Hursh wrote:
> > generalimpose scalarimpose list
> > -----
> > D$foo.eat$foo.bite$foo.gobble
> > N$foo.look$foo.peek$foo.peruse
> >
> > hmm, I don'
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:52:56PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Unfortunately, the only obvious one, 's', is taken.
I remind myself that 'S' is equally obvious, and not taken. Like _,
it suffers from spacing issues, but could be the ASCII backup for
the § character. (As Y is likel
Chromatic wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 14:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
Dan Hursh wrote:
generalimpose scalarimpose list
-----
D$foo.eat$foo.bite$foo.gobble
N$foo.look$foo.peek$foo.peruse
hmm, I don't like eat i
chromatic wrote:
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 14:26, Austin Hastings wrote:
Dan Hursh wrote:
generalimpose scalarimpose list
-----
D$foo.eat$foo.bite$foo.gobble
N$foo.look$foo.peek$foo.peruse
hmm, I don't l
Austin Hastings writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >Hmm. Gotta decided if S$foo.bar() is too ugly to live though...
> >
>
> It is.
Agreed.
> >I still kinda like underscore.
> >
> How about "scalar"? The fact that one person, one time, came up with a
> need to invoke it doesn't mean we have to race
Adverbs are confusing me mightily lately.
It may be that Larry's A12 revision just needs a few examples
*with* parenthesis to straighten me out.
Here are some semi-coherent attempts to sort it out
in my mind. Please correct me where I have made mistakes.
What is the rule(s) for when :foo is an
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: Adverbs are confusing me mightily lately.
:
: It may be that Larry's A12 revision just needs a few examples
: *with* parenthesis to straighten me out.
:
: Here are some semi-coherent attempts to sort it out
: in my mind. Please cor
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:18:55PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Only a sig of () makes it *not* look for an argument as a list operator.
That's overstated. Only a sig of () or ($x) or (?$x) suppresses
list operator-ness on ordinary function names.
Larry
Larry Wall writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> :
> :say .meth :foo;# say( .meth( foo=>1 ) )
>
> That one works.
But that's because :foo is an adverb to .meth, not because .meth is
taking an argument 'foo' => 1, right?
> Likewise
>
> sqrt($x):bo
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 06:12:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: > :
: > :say .meth :foo;# say( .meth( foo=>1 ) )
: >
: > That one works.
:
: But that's because :foo is an adverb to .meth, not because .m
On 8/20/04 5:30 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
> How about "scalar"? The fact that one person, one time, came up with a
> need to invoke it doesn't mean we have to race it up the huffman tree.
> P6 is winning the DWIM race most of the time contextually. Maybe [#] as
> a macro, if you like.
Yeah, that'
Larry Wall wrote:
$_ $xType of Match ImpliedMatching Code
== = ==
Any Code<$> scalar sub truth match if $x($_)
This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
common idiom in technical
Aaron Sherman writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > $_ $xType of Match ImpliedMatching Code
> > == = ==
> > Any Code<$> scalar sub truth match if $x($_)
> >
> This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 12:03:10AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I've already had my epiphany about POD, though, so I'll spare doing it
: again. In short, there are two things that I see about POD that need to
: change:
:
: =over
:
: =item 1)
:
: C<=directive> lines shouldn't have to be in their
38 matches
Mail list logo
