On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 04:01:24PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: What should $foo = (1,2,3) do now? Should it be the same as what
: $foo = [1,2,3]; did in Perl 6? (This is assuming that $foo=@INC does what
: $foo = \@INC; does now.) Putting it another way:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 01:17:45AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 12:24:50AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
Can someone post a few ? I am open to what are the pros/cons
but right now my mind is thinking Whats the benefit of making
$a=(1,2,3); be the same as $a=[1,2,3
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 08:15:46AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 07:21:29PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
$ref.{a}can be $ref{a}
which can also be
$ref.a
Dereferencing a hashref is the same as accessing a property?
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:34:49AM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
For the record, bwarnock pointed out to me that damian allready proposed
this behavior in RFC 25...
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/25.html
That RFC doesn't suggest having the comparison operators set properties
on their
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:39:51PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
Hopefully, we'll get a with operator and everything:
with %database.$accountnumber {
.interestearned += $interestrate * .balance
}
anything short of that, in my opinion, is merely trading old
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 08:59:59AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Second, and perhaps more importantly, we can do this perfectly well
with a module. No hacks, no tricks, no filters.
Class::Object uses the mini-class technique (ie. auto-generated
classes
Sorry,
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 09:06:14AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 02:53:19PM +0200, Nadim Khemir wrote:
Don't we already have that in Perl 5?
if ( /\G\s+/gc ) {# whitespaces }
elsif ( /\G[*/+-]/gc ) { # operator }
elsif ( /\G\d+/gc ) {
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 06:39:02AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
In the following code fragment, what context is foo() in?
@ary[0] = foo()
Scalar context. @ary[0] is a single element of @ary.
To call foo() in list context use any of the following:
(@ary[0]) =
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:29:39AM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
Close and close. As of two days ago, Larry's thinking was:
BEGIN Executes at the beginning of
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 12:50:38PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: What's the chance that it could be considered so?
In most other languages, you wouldn't even have the opportunity to put
a declaration into the conditional. You'd have to say something like:
my $line = $in;
if $line
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:58:49PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:43:07PM -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
Casey wrote:
So you're suggesting that we fake lexical scoping? That sounds more
icky than sticking to true lexical scoping. A block dictates scope,
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:01:09PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Graham Barr writes:
: But are we not at risk of introducing another form of
:
: my $x if 0;
:
: with
:
: if my $one = ONE {
: ...
: }
: elsif my $two = TWO {
: }
:
: if ($two
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:38:39PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Graham Barr writes:
: On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 01:01:09PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Graham Barr writes:
: : But are we not at risk of introducing another form of
: :
: : my $x if 0;
: :
: : with
: :
: : if my
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 02:25:35PM -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
I think you just said the same thing I did. To be more explicit, using
the terminology you seem to want to use, I'll point out that I was only
talking about the case of an inherited method, not a _replacement_
method. In other
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:35:22PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:30:25AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
method m1
{
m2; # calls method m2 in the same class
Yes, but does it call it as an instance method on the current invocant
or as a class method with no
On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 09:26:45AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Trey Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I've missed something, even after poring over the archives for
some hours looking for the answer. How does one write defaulting
subroutines a la builtins like print() and chomp()?
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:09:43PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
later.
It is not
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:17:52PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
On 5/1/02 12:11 PM, Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED] claimed:
It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like it'll be in
5.10 when that comes out (in a year or two).
I figured. Too bad. ;-) A year or two is long time to
I have been following this thread, but I would just like to inject a summary
of the various related UPPERCASE blocks
PREExecutes on block entry.
Loop variables are in a known state
POST Executes on block exit.
Loop variables are in a known state
NEXT Executes on
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 12:27:08PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:15:48PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
LAST Executes on implicit loop exit or call to last()
Loop variables may be unknown
Not exactly unknown. It's just that, in a few cases, their values may
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:14:15AM +0100, Sam Vilain wrote:
Sean O'Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
languages/perl6/README sort of hides it, but it does say that If you have
Perl = 5.005_03, $a += 3 may fail to parse. I guess we can upgrade
that to if you have 5.6, you lose.
I notice
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 06:02:14PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
This is a small collection of ideas for the Perl6 language. Think of this
posting as a light and refreshing summer fruit salad, composed of three
ideas to while away the time during this August lull in perl6-language.
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:52:18PM +, Damian Conway wrote:
I'd suggest that redundancy in syntax is often a good thing and
that there's nothing actually wrong with:
my Date $date = Date.new('June 25, 2002');
I would say it is not always redundant to specify the type on both
sides
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 05:50:55PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Allison Randal wrote:
: use Acme::N-1_0; # or whatever the format of the name is
I don't see why it couldn't just be:
use Acme::1.0;
I agree thats better. But why not separate the version more by
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:30:54PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
No. unless reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
nor? Maybe it's $a
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 05:16:48PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
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
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:25:44PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do these French quotes come through?
@a «+» @b
Odd, I see them in this message. But In the message from Larry I see ?'s
Graham.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
*shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
stands: is rw is too long for something we're going to do fairly often.
I am not so sure. If I look back through a lot of my code, there are more cases
where I use
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:16:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday Aaron Crane wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
@a `+ @b
In my experience, many people actually don't get the backtick
character at all.
Yes. I think that might be a good reason _for_ using backtick
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 09:33:14AM -0500, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
For example, suppose I want to separate a list of people into people who
have never donated money and those who have. Assuming that each person
object has a donations property which is an array reference, I would want
to
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:21:43PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes:
I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax, and how many only
say they do because it's Damian Conway who proposed it. And map/grep aren't
specialized syntax, you could do the
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:27:56PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
What benefit does C ~ bring to the language?
Again, it provides not just a null operator between to calls, but
rather a rewrite of method call syntax. So:
map {...} ~ grep {...} ~ @boing;
is not:
map {...} grep {...}
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:20:04AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 02:04 AM, Graham Barr wrote:
If the function form of map/grep were to be removed, which has been
suggested,
and the ~ form maps to methods. How would you go about defining a
utility
On 24 Aug 2004, at 22:14, Aaron Sherman wrote:
You don't HAVE to use auto-topicalization. You CAN always write it
long-hand if you find that confusing:
for @words - $word {
given ($chars($word) 70) - $toolong {
say abbreviate($word) ?? $word;
On Apr 27, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
The reasons I don't use English in P5:
* Variable access is slower
Hmm, looks to me like $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR is faster. (Actually
they're the same: on each run a
On May 4, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Uri Guttman wrote:
AS Why? Because IO::Socket.new takes parameters that are built out
of its
AS entire inheritance tree, so a change to IO::Handle might
radically
AS modify the signature of the constructor.
makes sense. we should look at the p5 IO:: tree and
On Thu, July 14, 2005 10:47 am, Autrijus Tang said:
If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
1. Meaning of $_
.method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.
On Feb 23, 2009, at 3:56 PM, mark.a.big...@comcast.net wrote:
Instant
Moment
Point
PointInTime
Timestamp
Event
Jiffy
Time
Juncture
On Mar 18, 2009, at 5:26 PM, fREW Schmidt wrote:
s1n and I decided that we would start Dallas.p6m as we are close to
each
other geographically speaking. We are meeting tomorrow (Thursday,
March 19,
7:00PM) at a coffee shop with free wifi. The address is 985 W
Bethany Dr
Allen, TX 75013.
101 - 139 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
