>I happen to like $ and @. They're not going away in standard Perl as
>long as I have anything to do with it. Nevertheless, my vision for Perl
>is that it enable people to do what *they* want, not what I want.
>
>Larry
If only that were true...But it isn't true. It was never true. And you
knew
>Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
>now?
That must never happen. It can be stopped. It must be stopped. It will be
stopped.
(except for the Redmond part, which I suspect might be a bit hard on
*their* eyes)
Hillary
"You're nothing if not dramatic."
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> So what you're saying is that references aren't really scalars,
> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
> But we've sort of run out of possible prefixes.
that is my interpretation of the p4->p5 decision to make references
fit within the scalar type; which
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:05:48PM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Will it be possible to define "pointer classes", a la C++, in a
> relatively "smooth" manner?
>
> That is, an object R has methods of its own as well as methods
> belonging to the "referred to" object?
Sounds you're looking for a
Will it be possible to define "pointer classes", a la C++, in a
relatively "smooth" manner?
That is, an object R has methods of its own as well as methods
belonging to the "referred to" object?
E_G: print "$R.toString is a reference to $R->toString";
Or some such? The notion of $R.getData.toStr
David Grove wrote:
...
> This is frightening me too. I really don't like the thought of
>
> $i = "1.0";
> $i += 0.1 if $INC;
> $i .= " Foo, Inc.";
>
> (or more specifically a one line version that converts several times for a
> single statement)
>
> becoming
>
> my str $i = "1.0";
> if($INC)
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Tying & Overloading
>> Helgason writes:
>> : I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
>> : more acceptable to the world of javacsharp
At 07:43 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: We'd want an alternative opcode running loop for all this, and it could
>: easily enough check times, as could special opcodes. Long-running codes
>: could also check at reasonable breakpoints. (Still in trouble with C
>: exten
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 24 Apr 2001 00:29:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>How do you concatenate together a list of variables that's longer than one
>>line without using super-long lines? Going to the shell syntax of:
>>
>>PATH=/some/long:/bunch/of:/stuff
>>PATH="${P
> As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, "Horse hooey!"*
Camel cookies.
;-)
> These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
> would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
> engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
> profit. T
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > A scalar's a thing.
> Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Indeed, hashes have scalar keys. Did you not realise that I conveyed
the same information in amazingly less confusing terminology?
Again
A. C. Yardley writes:
> taken off list. (I don't mean to arrogant the decisional authority
Erh, make that arrogate ...
/acy
David Grove writes:
> Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
> coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
> considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
> not I don't remember) saying that, even if it l
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > A scalar's a thing.
>
> Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Yes, but as Larry pointed out. Knowing if the index is to be treated
as a number or a string has some advantages for optimization
Gra
David Grove wrote:
> something similar to PHP's Array['text'] notation.
(I think awk, but whatever...)
my @collection is associative;
> since these will become actual objects in Perl 6,
> *how* they are indexed could be a simple flag
Or, in fact, any user-defined scheme.
> The re
Simon Cozens wrote:
> A scalar's a thing.
Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
--
John Porter
"Core Perl" is probably trademarked to Sun Microsystems. ;-)
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: John L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a grain
> of sand - the beginnings of a pearl. Of course, nobody would have got
> it, so we went with a cat instead, which is even more oblique.
Hmmm, I suppose a blown-up grain of sand cou
> [...] subject to ethnic
> cleansing. Culture wars arise spontaneously, but that should not deter
> us from enabling people to build new cultures. [...]
Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
now?
};P
David Grove writes:
: Probably rehashing (no pun intended) a lost cause, but this sounds logical
: to me, if you're referring to something similar to PHP's Array['text']
: notation. I.e.,
:
: $array[1]
: $hash{'one'}
:
: becoming
:
: @group['one']
Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you don
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
> to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
>
> my $foo;
> my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
I tried working on a "pythonish" module built arou
I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
my $foo;
my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
This sort of thing will only get easier in Perl 6, when people can pull
in their own grammatical rules to enable them to
> -Original Message-
> From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
>
>
> David Grove wrote:
> > $ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a
> multiplicity of pairs
> > But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
>
> Actually they do show "type", though not in a traditional sense.
> Organization <-> type is semantic oddery, but they do keep our heds
straight
> about what's in the variable.
Sure. But my point was that Perl's use of $ isn't Hungari
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:51:14AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
> by the semantics of its indexing.
Bah. You should try teaching this stuff! :)
A scalar's a thing. An array's a line of things. A hash is a bag of
pairs of things.
All
On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:06:45 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>>At that
>> point, Hungarian notation fell apart for me. Its strict use adds (IMO) as
>> much confusion as MicroSoft's redefinition of C, with thousands of
>> typedefs representing basic types ("LPSTR" and "HWND" come to mind as the
>> m
David Grove wrote:
> $ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a multiplicity of pairs
> with likely offspring as a result. ;-)
Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
by the semantics of its indexing.
Which is why I argued, some time back, in favor of conflating
a
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 08:21:10PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> What if, instead of cramming everything into "scalar" to the point
> where it loses its value as "a data type that magically converts
> between numeric and string, as needed," we undo the Great Perl5
> Dilution and undecorate refere
At 04:06 PM 5/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > oyster/clam/mussel shell "with association to the Perl language". The first
> > thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
> > is.
>
>I think all it wou
And there was me thinking the shiny ball must be a camel dropping
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> oyster/clam/mussel shell "with association to the Perl language". The first
> thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
> is.
I think all it would demonstrate is how flawed the copyright system is.
Bu
/me ponders the use of a cat in that context... Furball?
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2 -
On Wednesday 09 May 2001 10:44, David Grove wrote:
> I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
> until I saw the actual compliance with that request culminate in a local
> variable named l_st_uliI. Of course, that's an "static unsigned int i"
> used as a simple itera
> >An object of type "abstracted reference to a chair" is _NOT_ an object of
> >type "numeric or string that magicly switches between as needed"
>
> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
> But we've sort of r
I've often thought about trademarking a Shiny Ball (Perl) and an
oyster/clam/mussel shell "with association to the Perl language". The first
thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
is. But, I'd have licensed it to the community openly after an initial snit.
I did
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:02:43PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> What he is proposing is that Perl6 would have a kind of variable that
> doesn't have a prefix. That isn't perlish IMO.
open OUT, ">foo" or die $!;
print OUT "Rubbish!\n";
close OUT;
OUT = STDERR; # Works in 5.7.1, I think.
(Incidenta
>
> > sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
> > language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
> > its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
>
> But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show "type", thoug
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Several perl ports, and at least one book, use a "shiny ball" as a
> symbol.
> It took me a bit of thinking before I realized what this "shiny ball"
> represents. Odd.
Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a g
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
>I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
>not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
>hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
>
>The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring t
> Hungarian notation is any of a variety of standards for organizing
> a computer program by selecting a schema for naming your variables
> so that their type is readily available to someone familiar with
> the notation.
I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
unt
Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
h
At 04:02 PM 5/9/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>What he is proposing is that Perl6 would have a kind of variable that
>doesn't have a prefix. That isn't perlish IMO.
Sure it is. DEC BASIC let you do that (drop prefixes on variables declared
with types) and stealing from other languages is very p
[on David Nicol's thought that maybe references should be treated
differently than other scalar data]
>
>But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
>
Perhaps it's a mistake that Perl treats numbers and strings the
same. Perhaps "$" should be broken out into two prefixes: S for
string
On Wed, 9 May 2001 09:47:56 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
>
>No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
>
>> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
>> but their own type. T
Bart Lateur wrote:
> David L. Nicol wrote:
> >we undo the Great Perl5
> >Dilution and undecorate references.
>
> Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
> So what you're really saying is that refer
I really need to spell-check better.
>Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
Undecorated is for function calls and methods. And built-ins, of course.
--
Bart.
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:21:10 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>What if, instead of cramming everything into "scalar" to the point
>where it loses its value as "a data type that magically converts
>between numeric and string, as needed," we undo the Great Perl5
>Dilution and undecorate references.
Un
47 matches
Mail list logo
