On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 12:53:32PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Allison wrote:
>
> > The answer is the same, in any case: "When the condition in the
> > C has a false value, when the list/array in the C is empty,
> > or when the condition (2nd expression) in the C is met on the first
>
> OK, will at least this statement still work as it does in Perl5?
No.
> Notice addition of parens.
which, as you surmise later, have no effect on scoping issues.
> If that changes, I for one will need to go rewrite virtually every script
> and library I maintain,
or let p52p6 do it
> In Perl 6 a lexical variable is scoped to the block in which it's
declared.
> Since C<$cond> is declared in the block *containing* the C and
C,
> it's scoped to that block. So you can use it inside the C's block,
> inside the C's block (assuming Larry allows such a construct), and
in
> the follo
Miko wrote:
> I don't know if we're talking about the same thing, but I live using loops
> that declare variables in the test, so please exegize me. Which of these
> lines, if any, would cause a compiler error or warning?
>
> while my $cond = blah() {
> ...
> }
> else {
> print
> and C<$cond> is defined *outside* the block. So if Larry were to allow
C
> on loops, you'd be able to write:
> [snip]
> Given how rarely this kind of thing is actually needed (I've *never* used
such
> a construct), I suspect that an explicit variable is adequate.
I don't know if we're talking a
Allison wrote:
> The answer is the same, in any case: "When the condition in the
> C has a false value, when the list/array in the C is empty,
> or when the condition (2nd expression) in the C is met on the first
^
> Two solutions to the problem of accessing 'what' returned false are:
>
> 1) don't allow it.
> 2) Alias the value of the while/loop/if conditional into a special
> variable.
>
> while( blah() ) {
> ..
> } else { print $COND; }
>
> It's ugly, but it works, and doesn't break the holy scoping r
> > > I can also think of some advantages to having the "else" within the
> > > scope of the loop.
> >
> > while alllines("/etc/passwd") -> $_ {
> > ...
> > } else {
> > die "/etc/passwd: $_";
> > }
>
> But the aliased value, $_, is restricted to the scope of th
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:25:26PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 01:55 PM 4/29/02 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
> >
> >There will have to be a section of the training material devoted to
> >"When is a loop false?" (I like that perspective, it nicely unifies the
> >cases), but it should be a short
At 04:15 PM 4/29/02 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:14:01PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> >
> > Well then, I guess we should dump "elsif" from if too. After all, it
> > could all be done with nested blocks of if/else
>
>But C is different. You use it all the time. The
On 4/29/02 1:41 PM, "Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
claimed:
> My point is that, IMO, this whole "els" thing is completely preposterous.
> I'm the kind of person that likes to keep down on keywords. And I never
> liked Perl5's C anyway; I always preferred C. I really
> don't understand what at
At 01:55 PM 4/29/02 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:10:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Again, it's just first derivative over time. You're not asking "is there
> > a false value", you're asking "is the loop false". Just as we understand
> > that an array in a conditio
Allison wrote:
> I still don't like the idea of Cs on loops. I already do an
> instant double take with C of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
> old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head). It seems that a long string
> of Cs (possibly separated by other long intervening sections of
> code) woul
The only reasonable way of doing loops is to use highly verbose syntax:
#!/usr/bin/perl
# sample while loop
As_Long_As[0] __(*&%$ $%&*)__
begin_statement_of_syntax
# 7 (spaces required)
while_percha
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > while $result.get_next() -> $next {
> > # do something with $next...
> > ELSE {
> ># do something otherwise with $next
> > }
> > }
> > }
> Here's the code, expanded:
Unfortunately, that code isn't even close to the
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Er, what?!? Who said we're dropping "until"? Did I miss something?
>
> Well, if there's no while (replaced by generic "loop", per Apoc4) why
> would there be an until?
As Aaron himself has discovered, neither C nor C is being
dropped from Perl 6.
Incidently, even C i
Concerning the els(loop|for|while) controversy, I'd like to bring it back to
the point that started it all: loop-else. There seems to be a fair amount
of support for a loop-else contruct. Can we/Larry decide to accept
loop-else, regardless of what other decisions need to be made? It would be
a
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 04:14:01PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> Well then, I guess we should dump "elsif" from if too. After all, it
> could all be done with nested blocks of if/else
But C is different. You use it all the time. The frequency with
which you'd need a loop that leads into a
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 16:41, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > So, the answer to your question is: yes, I do propose that there should
> > be an elsif, elsloop and elsfor. That's it. Three words, not an
> > expansive list of ever-more-complex words.
>
> Oh! I have an idea! Why don't we make the lexer just r
> So, the answer to your question is: yes, I do propose that there should
> be an elsif, elsloop and elsfor. That's it. Three words, not an
> expansive list of ever-more-complex words.
Oh! I have an idea! Why don't we make the lexer just realize a prefix
"els" on any operator. Then you could do
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Of course it brings other less wholesome things to mind like "elsfor"
> and "elsloop" and "if ... elsfor" and "for ... elsif ... elsloop ...
> else", but why not?
Because Perl 6 is already...err...over-endowed with keywords, few of which are
as klunky as these would be. I
> > I still don't like the idea of Cs on loops. I already do an
> > instant double take with C of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
> > old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head).
>
> Me too. That's why the looping "else" should be spelled "otherwise"
> IMHO.
If a loop produced a boolean val
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 15:54, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:41, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > > I would expect that to be "elsuntil", bu
What about unless? Since we are giving els to loops, shouldn't we upgrade
unless as well? That would be really weird if it were not upgraded.
Tanton
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Allison Randal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Aaron Sherman" <[EMAIL
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 02:55:09PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
> I still don't like the idea of Cs on loops. I already do an
> instant double take with C of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
> old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head).
Me too. That's why the looping "else" should be spelled
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 15:46, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> > Well, if there's no while (replaced by generic "loop", per Apoc4) why
> > would there be an until?
>
> Whoa. I actually had a moment of panic there. Then I checked for myself.
> I don't see anything in Apoc4 about getting rid of while. It
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> Ok, once more for those in the cheap seats (no offense, it's just a lot
> of people seemed to have ignored the thread until now and jumped in
> without the context), this is how we got here:
>
> 1. Larry says loops will have "ELS
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 03:30:40PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:41, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > I would expect that to be "elsuntil", but as we're dropping "until" from
> > > the language, it's a moot
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 08:53, Damian Conway wrote:
> Which I presume was that the proposed usage:
>
> while $result.get_next() -> $next {
> # do something with $next...
> ELSE {
> if $next eq "xyz572" {
> print "We defined this value, $next, as fals
> Well, if there's no while (replaced by generic "loop", per Apoc4) why
> would there be an until?
Whoa. I actually had a moment of panic there. Then I checked for myself.
I don't see anything in Apoc4 about getting rid of while. It may be
excluded from evolution, but it's still there, sorta l
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:30, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> > 1) Do we have a reality check on why this syntax is needed?
>
> It's because the alternative is:
>
> Perl5:
> $did = 0;
> for($i=0;$i<$max;$i++) {
>
On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 10:41, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > I would expect that to be "elsuntil", but as we're dropping "until" from
> > the language, it's a moot point.
>
> Er, what?!? Who said we're dropping "until"? Did I miss
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:10:01AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:06, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> Absolutely what I thought. "elsif" would be for "thing else if" where
> "elsfor" would be "thing else for-loop". Since you got this distinction
> right off, it sounds like an in
On Sat, 2002-04-27 at 01:14, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> > Besides, I would expect an C to actually be a loop of it's own,
> > on the principle of "elsif = else + if" so "elsfor = else + for".
>
> So, you're suggesting we add C then? Just because it's
>
> See above.
>
> > Two issues spring to mind:
> >
> > 1) Do we have a reality check on why this syntax is needed? I agree it's
> > cool idea, but can anyone name a real-world scenario where it would be
> > useful? Can we do things just bcause they're cool? That approach didn't
> > work too we
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 10:26:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I would expect that to be "elsuntil", but as we're dropping "until" from
> the language, it's a moot point.
Er, what?!? Who said we're dropping "until"? Did I miss something?
> Proposed Perl6:
>
> loop $i=0;$i<$max;$i++ {
On Monday, April 29, 2002 3:10 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:06, Allison Randal wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:24:13PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > Of course it brings other less wholesome things to mind like "elsfor"
> > > and "elsloop" and "if ... elsfor" and "f
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:30, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> > Of course it brings other less wholesome things to mind like "elsfor"
> > and "elsloop" and "if ... elsfor" and "for ... elsif ... elsloop ...
> > else", but why not?
>
> Well, I agree with the concept, but boyoboy those names ain't
On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 19:06, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:24:13PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Of course it brings other less wholesome things to mind like "elsfor"
> > and "elsloop" and "if ... elsfor" and "for ... elsif ... elsloop ...
> > else", but why not?
>
> Urk.
39 matches
Mail list logo
