Uri Guttman wrote:
DC Sure. Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/[42], so too $whatever is a
DC shorthand for $/whatever.
but then what about the different index bases for $42 and $/[42]? i
don't think that has been resolved (nor has mixing the $1.1 and $1[1]
syntaxes).
Bear in mind that that
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 17:48 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
But it does raise an important point: the discrepancy between $42 and $/[41]
*is* a great opportunity for off-by-on errors. Previously, however, @Larry
have tossed back and forth the possibility of using $0 as the first capture
Given:
fail with configurable behavior
no fatal to make fail just warn
use fatal to make fail throw exceptions
A question came up on #perl6 for the following code:
no fatal;
class Foo {
use fatal;
method bar() { fail; }
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-05-11 7:44 (-0400):
no fatal to make fail just warn
I thought it wouldn't warn, but instead silently return undef (an
unthrown exception).
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
On 5/11/05, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given:
fail with configurable behavior
no fatal to make fail just warn
Juerd is right here, it doesn't warn. Instead of dieing, it returns
an undef with some helpful diagnostic information (an unthrown
exception as Larry has
On 5/11/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sub foo() {
fail;
}
use fatal;
sub bar() {
foo(); # foo() throws exception
}
no fatal;
sub baz() {
foo(); # foo() returns undef
}
use fatal;
bar(); # propagates
But it does raise an important point: the discrepancy between $42 and $/[41]
*is* a great opportunity for off-by-on errors. Previously, however, @Larry
have tossed back and forth the possibility of using $0 as the first capture
variable so that the indices of $/[0], $/[1], $/[2] match up
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 09:50, Luke Palmer wrote:
Oh, just to avoid further confusion: In the baz() called under fatal,
it will only turn undefs that were generated by fail calls into
exceptions. Other sorts of undefs will be returned as ordinary
undefs.
Ok, so let me try to get my head
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Uri Guttman wrote:
DC Sure. Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/[42], so too $whatever is a
DC shorthand for $/whatever.
but then what about the different index bases for $42 and $/[42]? i
don't think that has been resolved
DC == Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC Uri Guttman wrote:
DC Sure. Just as $42 is a shorthand for $/[42], so too $whatever is a
DC shorthand for $/whatever.
but then what about the different index bases for $42 and $/[42]? i
don't think that has been resolved (nor has
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: But that's only the opinion of one(@Larry), not of $Larry.
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so that $/[] is all the parens.
Our old $0 (P5's $) could be $ instead, short for $MATCH or some
such.
It's already the case that
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:30:42AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: But that's only the opinion of one(@Larry), not of $Larry.
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so that $/[] is all the parens.
Our old $0 (P5's $) could be $
H,
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:30:42AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: But that's only the opinion of one(@Larry), not of $Larry.
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so that $/[] is all the parens.
Our old $0 (P5's $) could be $
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:06:57AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 08:30:42AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: But that's only the opinion of one(@Larry), not of $Larry.
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-11 8:30 (-0700):
It's already the case that p5-to-p6 is going to have a *wonderful*
time translating $7 to $1[2][0]...
If I remember correctly, ** recursively flattens, and so (**$/)[7-1]
should work.
And otherwise a simple method can probably do the trick. I
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-11 8:30 (-0700):
It's already the case that p5-to-p6 is going to have a *wonderful*
time translating $7 to $1[2][0]...
Or maybe it just has to change ( to $1 := (, the second ( to $2
:= (, etc.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
What does p6l think? (What does @Larry think?)
I favor #3 as syntax error.
But note $TSa == all( none(@Larry), one($p6l) ) or so :)
--
TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-11 11:45 (-0500):
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
#2 implies that (1)[0][0][0][0] == 1
#1 means that (1)[0] == 1 and (1)[0][0] is an error
#1 also means that ($aref)[0] is
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:37:53PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-11 8:30 (-0700):
It's already the case that p5-to-p6 is going to have a *wonderful*
time translating $7 to $1[2][0]...
Or maybe it just has to change ( to $1 := (, the second ( to $2
:= (, etc.
More likely
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:01:35PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Of course, this now begs the question -- where are things stored
after doing ... ?
rx :perl5 / (don't) (ray) (me) (for solar) /
My guess is that within the rule they're $1, $2, $3, etc. as before,
Within the rule, $1
On 5/11/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-11 11:45 (-0500):
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
#2 implies that (1)[0][0][0][0] == 1
#1 means that (1)[0] == 1 and
My perspective from PDL is that (1)[0][0][0]...[0] should evaluate
to 1. The artificial distinction between a scalar and an array of
length 1 (in each dimension) is the source of endless hassles, and it's
a pretty simple DWIM to allow indexing of element 0 of any unused
dimension. That makes
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 12:45, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
where we're at so far:
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
It may or may not help, but I
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:48:59PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: But that's only the opinion of one(@Larry), not of $Larry.
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so that $/[] is all the parens.
Our old $0 (P5's $) could be $ instead, short for $MATCH or some
such.
Why can't bare $/ just
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:35:36PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-11 8:30 (-0700):
: It's already the case that p5-to-p6 is going to have a *wonderful*
: time translating $7 to $1[2][0]...
:
: If I remember correctly, ** recursively flattens, and so (**$/)[7-1]
: should work.
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
: where we're at so far:
:
: 1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
: 2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
: 3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
:
: We
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 01:11:45PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
:
: We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
: where we're at so far:
:
: 1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
: 2. scalars are
Three years ago I wrote a simple Perl 5 script to convert the EBNF
specification of XML to Perl 6's rules.
Pugs supports rules now, so perhaps it can be tested. This is a complex
job (because it's a complex grammar, and of course it can never work
without much tweaking, and debugging grammars is
In a somewhat related topic:
pugs (1,(2,3),4)[2]
4
Because the invocant to .[] assumes a Singular context.
I'm not sure how any invocant can assume a Plural context anyway,
so this behaviour seems correct. Is it, though? :)
Thanks,
/Autrijus/
pgpihJttxQxy9.pgp
Description: PGP
On 5/11/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a somewhat related topic:
pugs (1,(2,3),4)[2]
4
Because the invocant to .[] assumes a Singular context.
Right, but the *inside* of the invocant is still a list, so it's in
list context. I think that line should return 3.
Luke
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:00:15PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 5/11/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a somewhat related topic:
pugs (1,(2,3),4)[2]
4
Because the invocant to .[] assumes a Singular context.
Right, but the *inside* of the invocant is still a
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:02AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Hm? Under #2, no matter whether @foo is (1) or (1,2), the construct
: (@foo)[0] would always means @foo.[0]. Not sure how the length of @foo
: matters here.
Tell you what, let's require P5's (...)[] to be translated to [...][],
so
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 02:12:41PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:19:02AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Hm? Under #2, no matter whether @foo is (1) or (1,2), the construct
: (@foo)[0] would always means @foo.[0]. Not sure how the length of @foo
: matters here.
Tell
All~
On 5/11/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a somewhat related topic:
pugs (1,(2,3),4)[2]
4
Because the invocant to .[] assumes a Singular context.
Right, but the *inside* of the invocant is still a list, so
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:19:11AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Sure (and done). Now that #1 is eliminated, the question is now
: whether a simple scalar can be treated as a small (one-element) array
: reference, much like a simple pair can be treated as a small
: (one-element) hash reference.
:
Larry decreed:
Let's go 0-based and make $0 =:= $/[0] so that $/[] is all the parens.
Huzzah!
Our old $0 (P5's $) could be $ instead, short for $MATCH or some
such.
According to the new capture semantics document posted earlier this week:
A successful match returns a CMatch object whose ...
Larry mused:
I'm wondering if it's just a cardinal/ordinal thing, and we can just
translate $7 to $7th. Then we don't have to guess where to insert
a .flat or :flat.
That's a very interesting generalization. There are plenty of *other* cases
where one wants an ordinal, or some other kind of $n-1
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 17:48, Matt Fowles wrote:
On 5/11/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/11/05, Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a somewhat related topic:
pugs (1,(2,3),4)[2]
4
Because the invocant to .[] assumes a Singular context.
Right,
Damian Conway wrote:
print @array[1st..($n)th];
Sounds cool, but what about $n = 0; ?
- Fagzal
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:37:06AM +0200, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
print @array[1st..($n)th];
Sounds cool, but what about $n = 0; ?
Then it would be 0..-1, an empty range.
/Autrijus/
pgpW4KeLIp7hR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Autrijus Tang wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:37:06AM +0200, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
print @array[1st..($n)th];
Sounds cool, but what about $n = 0; ?
Then it would be 0..-1, an empty range.
Yep, but I mean in general isn't it confusing that the 0th
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:45:12AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
We're discussing the proper semantics of (1)[0] on #perl6. Here's
where we're at so far:
1. specialise ()[] to parse as (,)[]
2. scalars are singleton lists, so ()[] naturally
3. make (1)[0] die horribly.
(1)[0] means
That's a very interesting generalization. There are plenty of *other*
cases
where one wants an ordinal, or some other kind of $n-1 value. If Cth
(and
Cst, Cnd, Crd) was a subtract one operator, you could write:
my $n = prompt How many elems? ;
print
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:04:48AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: Please sanity-check. :-)
Looks good to me. Though that should perhaps not be confused with sanity.
Larry
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 06:24:38PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: I'm confused as well. How does that play with Larry's comment:
:
:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/browse_frm/thread/54a1135c012b97bf/d17b4bc5ae7db058?q=list+commarnum=5hl=en#d17b4bc5ae7db058
Well, that
I now have a basic implementation for enumerated character classes in
the grammar engine (i.e., [xyz], -[xyz], [x..z], and -[x..z]).
I didn't see it specified anywhere, but are the \d, \D, \s, \S, etc.
metacharacters still supposed to work inside of a enumerated character
class, as they do in
I'm working on an annotated version of the mailing list so that old
postings can be more easily researched. My very primitive implementation
is:
http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/cgi-bin/p6l-index.cgi
The input datafile is:
http://www.ajs.com/~ajs/p6l.dat
I'm using Google Groups as a
47 matches
Mail list logo
