-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:38:11AM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: multi sub *scramble (String $s) returns String {...}
: [...]
: Or you can just call it directly as a function:
:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:49:44AM -0800, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
: So, will mutatingness be a context we'll be able to inquire on
: in the implementation of a called routine?
Probably not, but it's vaguely possible you
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10.51, Damian Conway wrote:
There are also cases where something like:
$a ||= $b;
or:
$a += $b;
changes the type of value in $a. Should we flag those too? Currently we do
warn on the second one if $a can't be cleanly coerced to numeric. Would
that be
-Original Message-
From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Larry wrote:
On the other hand, I suspect most people will end up declaring it
int method
self:rotate (int $a is rw) {...}
in any event, and reserve the =rotate for .=rotate, which can never put
Austin Hastings writes:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 06:49:44AM -0800, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
: So, will mutatingness be a context we'll be able to inquire on
: in the implementation of a called routine?
Probably
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unfortunately we can't just use topicalization to say
my Cat $tom = .new()
because most people won't expect simple assignment to break their
current topic.
So another option is to replace = with something that
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 03:47:22AM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now in the specific case of . and .= we don't exactly have a normal
binary operator, because the right side is not an expression.
$tis.=««sad pity
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 12:29:36PM +1100, Deborah Pickett wrote:
: That triggered a thought about unary operators. What about:
:
: $a !=;# i.e., $a = ! $a;
Well, an argument could be made that the corresponding syntax is really:
!= $a;
But you have to read the
A op= B ==
On 3/12/04 12:43 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Some good questions only have bad answers. This might be one of them.
I have been watching this thread with increasing unease, asking myself
exactly what the potential benefit is of this proposed feature and syntax.
I'm all for saving some typing, but
Larry Wall wrote:
Now, if we had a unary = that assigned to the current topic, we could do
it with the existing topicalizer as
given my Dog $dog { = .new }
But I'm not recommending that approach, because I dislike unary =, and
because I don't want every declaration to have to say given.
Oh, it's got lots of Japanese in it, I'd better read it... :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
Some will argue that since English doesn't have a grammatical
postfix topicalizer like Japanese, we should stick with something
like more English-like:
$x = (.a + .b + .c given $foo)
I
And I do think people would rebel at using Latin-1 for that one.
I get enough grief for :-)
I can imagine that these cause some trouble with people using a charset
other than ISO-8859-1 (Latin-1) that works well with 8 bit, like Greek,
Arabic, Cyrillic and Hebrew.
For these guys Unicode is
12 matches
Mail list logo
