Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
If losing the magic from ='d pairs isn't buying us named args
Larry mused:
On the other hand, I'm not all that attached to colon itself.
I *am*!!!
If, as proposed elsewhere, we get rid of the %Foo:: notation in favor of
some Foo variant, then trailing :: becomes available (ignoring ??/::
for the moment), and
new Dog:: tail = 'long'
almost makes
Larry wrote:
Or we could have a different operator that coerces like == and eq, only
via .snap:
if [1,2,3] equals [1,2,3] { say true } else { say false }
(Actual name negotiable, of course). The advantage of the latter approach
is that you can say
@foo equals @bar
and the
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 16:32:37 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm, well, I don't think op is valid syntax, but you did say
semantics, so I can't criticize that part. :-)
What is , btw?
Is it
circumfix:{'',''} (Code op -- Code); # takes some code, returns
a listop
or
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 04:27:03PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one
WRT to PIL and compilation and all that, I think it's time to think
about how the linker might look.
As I see it the compilation chain with the user typing this in the
prompt:
perl6 foo.pl
perl6 is a compiled perl 6 script that takes an input file, and
compiles it, and then passes the
I don't think this example reads very clearly. Visually you have to parse
until you see the next = and then back track one word to figure out the key.
move( from= $x, $y, delta= $up, $right );
Personally I'd write that as either
move(from = [$x, $y], delta = [$up, $right]);
OR
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
in one zone.
If losing the
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:38:39AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
When calling a function, I would like to be able to have a
mixture of named and positional arguments. The named argument
acts as a tab into the argument list and subsequent unnamed
arguments continue on.
I see a main point of
I've been trying to thing about how to make this read right without too
much line noise. I think Lukes keyword approach (named) is on the
right track.
If we want named params at both start and end, then its bound to be a
bit confusing. But perhaps we can say that they're always at the end --
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 10:12:39AM -0700, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 08:38:39AM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
When calling a function, I would like to be able to have a
mixture of named and positional arguments. The named argument
acts as a tab into the argument list and
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 10:11:37AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
setting up the proxy hash. It's possible that COW hashes can be made
to work efficiently. We'll need to copy hashes if we want to modify
them to pass to subfunctions, just as when you change your environment
it doesn't affect your
12 matches
Mail list logo
