(It seems you're confused about my position because I was sloppy
presenting it. My apologies; hopefully this will clear a few things
up.)
On 10/10/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stuart Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The think I don't like about `foo( *$bar )` is that it's not clear
On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So to pass a hash that has one element requires using the chash/c
keyword?
I don't see a hash in your example, so I'm not sure what you're
referring to here.
Specifically, if I say:
@args = (a = 1, get_overrides());
Then can I say
Stuart Cook skribis 2005-10-10 22:58 (+1100):
@args = (a = 1, get_overrides());
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
Not if you want that a=1 to be a named argument.
Under the proposal, the only ways to pass a named argument are:
1) By using a literal pair in the syntactic top-level of the arg list
Miroslav Silovic skribis 2005-10-10 15:04 (+0200):
Under the proposal, the only ways to pass a named argument are:
1) By using a literal pair in the syntactic top-level of the arg list
2) By splatting a pair, hash, or arg-list-object
I find this counterintuitive, and also want arrays to be
Juerd skribis 2005-10-10 15:20 (+0200):
only pairs on the topmost level of arguments (not in any parens) are
s/not in any parens/not in any grouping parens/, to exclude .()
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stuart Cook skribis 2005-10-10 22:58 (+1100):
@args = (a = 1, get_overrides());
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
Not if you want that a=1 to be a named argument.
Under the proposal, the only ways to pass a named argument are:
1) By using a literal pair in the
Interestingly, I had already written almost exactly the same thing
into my version of S06, but I've been holding off on checking it in
while I mull over Luke's theory theory. Regardless of the actual
syntax we end up with, I think everyone can assume that the compiler
will be able to determine at
Stuart Cook wrote:
On 10/10/05, Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The overrides have nothing to do with it. That a=1 will *always* be a
positional, because by the time it reaches the argument list, it's a value
(not a syntactic form). The only way to use a pair-value as a named
HaloO,
I fear I'm addicted...
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 10/7/05, chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 17:43 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
No, you can't overload assignment at runtime because you can't
overload assigment at any time, so says the language spec (well, not
any
Miroslav Silovic wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* expands its RHS and evaluate it as if it was written literally.
I'd like @_ or @?ARGS or something like that to be a *-able array that
will be guaranteed to be compatible with the current sub's signature.
This sounds nice, though. Maybe
Hi,
Austin Hastings wrote:
How about perl should DWIM? In this case, I'm with Juerd: splat
should pretend that my array is a series of args.
Yep.
So if I say:
foo [EMAIL PROTECTED];
or if I say:
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
I still mean the same thing: shuck the array and get those
Austin Hastings wrote:
How about perl should DWIM? In this case, I'm with Juerd: splat should
pretend that my array is a series of args.
So if I say:
foo [EMAIL PROTECTED];
or if I say:
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
I still mean the same thing: shuck the array and get those args out
here, even
On 2005-10-10 13:36, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the proposal, a Pair object doesn't have any special
magic
Right. So under this proposal, the key = value syntax is overloaded: in
some contexts it creates a Pair object, and in others it assigns a value to
a named
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 19:36 (+0200):
my @array = (42, hi, (a = 23));
It is worth pointing out that the inner parens here are merely for
grouping: this information is lost afterwards, hence this:
foo [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # same as
shouldn't be
foo 42, hi, (a = 23);
Hi,
Mark Reed wrote:
On 2005-10-10 13:36, Ingo Blechschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the proposal, a Pair object doesn't have any special
magic
Right. So under this proposal, the key = value syntax is
overloaded: in some contexts it creates a Pair object, and in others
it assigns a
Hi,
Dave Whipp wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
How about perl should DWIM? In this case, I'm with Juerd: splat
should pretend that my array is a series of args.
So if I say:
foo [EMAIL PROTECTED];
or if I say:
foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
I still mean the same thing: shuck the array
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 19:36 (+0200):
my @array = (42, hi, (a = 23));
It is worth pointing out that the inner parens here are merely for
grouping: this information is lost afterwards, hence this:
foo [EMAIL PROTECTED]; # same as
shouldn't be
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 20:08 (+0200):
Named arguments can -- under the proposal -- only ever exist in calls.
Which leaves us with no basic datastructure that can hold both
positional and named arguments. This is a problem because in a call,
they can be combined.
An array could
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 19:59 (+0200):
my @args = ( (a = 1), b = 2 ); # is sugar for
my @args = ( (a = 1), (b = 2) );
Please, no. Please let the pair constructor be =, not (=). There is
really no need for this operator to consist of both infix and circumfix
parts. Please
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 19:59 (+0200):
my @args = ( (a = 1), b = 2 ); # is sugar for
my @args = ( (a = 1), (b = 2) );
Please, no. Please let the pair constructor be =, not (=). There is
really no need for this operator to consist of both infix and
J == Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
J Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 19:59 (+0200):
my @args = ( (a = 1), b = 2 ); # is sugar for
my @args = ( (a = 1), (b = 2) );
J Please, no. Please let the pair constructor be =, not (=). There is
J really no need for this operator to
Hi,
Juerd wrote:
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-10-10 20:08 (+0200):
Named arguments can -- under the proposal -- only ever exist in
calls.
Which leaves us with no basic datastructure that can hold both
positional and named arguments. This is a problem because in a call,
they can be
Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Apocalypse 12 has the following to say about roles and trust
(http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html?page=10)
It's not clear whether roles should be allowed to grant
trust. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm
inclined to say not.
In
Evening all,
So I am in the process of adding class-methods into the meta-model
using eigenclasses. Eigenclasses are a ruby thing (and also a CLOS
thing IIRC), in which an anon-class is inserted between an instance
and it's class, essentially replacing the instance's class. The anon-
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 2005-10-09
Hello, and welcome to the first Perl 6 Summary to be published on my
website rather than its former home at http://www.perl.com/
This week in perl6-compiler
PGE error on failing subrules
Allison broke the resounding silence of the
On 10/10/05, Stevan Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
::Class
^
: -- eFoo is a subclass of Class
:
::eFoo # eFoo is also an instance of Class
|
| -- eFoo is the class of Foo
V
::Foo
The dispatching of instance methods is still the same, and
Luke,
On Oct 10, 2005, at 7:47 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
How do you explain this:
class Foo {
method bar (Class $class:) { class method }
}
say Foo.bar;# class method
my $foo = Foo.new;
say $foo.bar; # class method
Assuming that that is valid Perl.
It
27 matches
Mail list logo
