Perl6 Operator List, Take 3

2002-10-27 Thread Michael Lazzaro
If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes: unary (prefix) operators: \ - reference to * - list flattening ? - force to bool context ! - force to bool context, negate not - force to bool context, negate + - force to numeric context - - force t

Re: Perl6 Operator List

2002-10-27 Thread Michael Lazzaro
Simon Cozens wrote: > I just see code like > ~~ sub (@x) { map { _ => _ } @attrs x Inf ^, @x } > and get the screaming heaves. I agree, it's like the punchline to a perl-haters joke. We're supposed to explain _that_ to people? :-/ NORMAL people? 8-/ And not get punched in the face? Maybe t

Re: Learning curve

2002-10-27 Thread Michael Lazzaro
Michael Lazzaro wrote: > Heck, I'd even argue that "$a mat $b" works, too. > What does "mat" do? It "mats". If "grep" is a word, "mat" can be a > word. :-) Or "lik". Or "sma". Or just z, as in "matchez" or a twisted "s" $foo mat $bar $foo mz $bar $foo lik $bar

RE: Perl6 Operator List, Take 2

2002-10-27 Thread fearcadi
Damian Conway wrote: : > or : > : > given ( "/home/temp/", $f ) : > -> ( str $x , int $n ) { : > $x ~ ["one, "two", ... , "hundreed"][$n] : > }; : > : > it seems that the last does not work because given take only one argument. : : That's right. But th

Re: Radix (was Re: Perl6 Operator List)

2002-10-27 Thread Mark J. Reed
On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > > Larry wrote: > > > If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada > > > route of specifying the radix explicitly: Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place of your colon below), and I seem to recall that sy

Re: labeled if blocks

2002-10-27 Thread Marco Baringer
"Steve Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this: > > BLAH: > if ($foo) { > ... > last BLAH if $bar; > ... > } why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from? if $foo -> { ... return if $bar; ... } this of course

Re: Perl6 Operator List

2002-10-27 Thread Smylers
Simon Cozens wrote: > However hard it may be to believe, I'm not just saying this to be > snarky; I am excited by Perl 6 and want to see good things come out of > it. I just want to make sure that the various creative processes are > kept in check. :) Simon, please keep doing this! I think it's

Re: Perl6 Operator List

2002-10-27 Thread Smylers
Larry Wall wrote: > On 26 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote: > > : Larry Wall wrote: > : > : > print(length $a), "\n"; > : > print (length $a), "\n"; > : > : Those look to me like they should do the same thing as each other. > > Sorry, they don't look that way to me. Having slept on it, I'm not

Re: Perl6 Operator List

2002-10-27 Thread Simon Cozens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: > : I hope you're not buying any of this crap > : about Perl 6 being more "regular" or removing the "inconsistencies" of > : Perl 5. It simply isn't true. > > Hey, sounds like it'd make a great column. Go for it. I'll expect > a little more than an argumen

Re: XOR vs. Hyper (was Re: Perl6 Operator List)

2002-10-27 Thread Luke Palmer
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:01:31 -0700 > From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-Accept-Language: en,pdf > Cc: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12-dev, http://develo

Re: Perl6 Operator List

2002-10-27 Thread Piers Cawley
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John Siracusa wrote: >> Larry's just thinking out loud, right? > > Yes, and so is everyone else. Most posts here, including Larry's, > are stream-of-conciousness. Heck, in one of the last ones I swear > there were, what, 6 or 7 possible ways to say t