On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: I suppose we could make comma merely puke in scalar context rather
: than DWIM, at least optionally.
:
: I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
Most of the uses of which are actually in void context, where
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 12:40 PM -0700 9/26/02, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: Is that sufficiently vague?
:
: Not vague enough, because the current implementation manages to miss the
: broad side of that semantic barn...
:
: The
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
: Thanks for taking the time to write this out.
:
: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: perl6 operator precedence
:
: leftterms and list operators (leftward) [] {} () quotes
: left. and unary .
:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, John Williams wrote:
: I'm trying to write a revised operator precedence table for perl6,
: similar to the one in perlop.pod.
:
: This is what I have come up with based on Apocalypse 3 and Exegesis 3.
: Does anyone have comments? I'm not sure if the precedence
: for :
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joe Gottman wrote:
: Apocalypse 4 mentions unary '?' . Since this is used to force boolean
: context, I would assume that it has the same precedence as unary '+' and
: '_' which force numeric and string context respectively. By the way, has
: anyone come up with a use
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: : but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
: : put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
: : else.
:
: Could perhaps unify with C
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
: and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
: term (which is how we recognize
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brad Hughes wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: [...]
: Maybe we should ... to mean and so on forever:
:
: a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
:
: Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
: might be handier in real life.
:
: No more yada-yada-yada
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 01:36:19AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael G Schwern) writes:
: method _do_internal_init ($num) is private {
:
: Just thinking aloud, would
: sub foo is method is private is integer
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, chromatic wrote:
: On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 04:12:44 -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
:
: I like the class Vehicle is interface as a shorthand for declaring every
: method of a class to be an interface.
:
: Perhaps associating a property with a class can be shorthand for
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Andy Wardley wrote:
: Nicholas Clark wrote:
: I think that the first syntax
:
: class Car::Q is Car renames(eject = ejector_seat)
: is CD_Player renames(drive = cd_drive);
:
: makes it more clear that I'd like to pick and choose which methods
: the
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Luke Palmer:
: for ( grep { $_{smoker} and $_{age} 18 } Subscribers ) {
: .send($Cigarette_Advertisement)
: }
:
: Hm, would this work too:
:
: for ( grep { .{smoker} and .{age} 18 } Subscribers )
:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: Wasn't class MyClass; supposed to work along the line of Perl5's
: package MyClass; and make everything following that statement the
: definition of MyClass?
Yes, though we're thinking of limiting that construct to the front
of a file, along with
: Problem:
:
: You want to use delegation rather than inheritance to
: add some capabilities of one class or object to
: another class or object.
:
: Solution:
:
: Use a PROXY block:
:
: class MyClass {
:
: PROXY {
: attr $left_front_wheel is Wheel;
: attr
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:21:38PM +0100, Aaron Crane wrote:
: Vaguely heretical, I know, but I'd be inclined to do something like this:
:
:Perl 5 Proposed Perl 6
:$x $y $x $y
:$x || $y $x | $y
:
: Larry just added nice
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Allison Randal writes:
: So far, classes are uppercase and properties are lowercase, but that's
: convention, not law.
:
: Do runtime (value) properties and compile-time (variable) properties share
: the same
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;
After all, we don't have package names starting with numbers right now...
Larry
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 04:11 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: has Nose $.snout;
: has Ear .ears is cut(long);
: has Leg .legs;
: has Tail $.tail is cut(short);
:
: method Wag () {...}
: }
:
: What's the rationale
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Garrett Goebel wrote:
: That wasn't the way I remembered it from Apoc 4... The following example is
: not in A4, but its what I inferred from it...
:
: Class Foo {
: method eat($food) is abstract {
: PRE { ... }
: POST { ... }
: }
: }
A4 was proposing those for a
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Peter Haworth wrote:
: This is the one nice thing about the Pascal-like syntax of Eiffel. It allows
: this situation to be unambiguous and sensibly ordered (as well as giving each
: condition labels, so that violations can be better reported):
:
: foo(this: ThisType, that:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
:
: Incidentally, has there been any headway made on how you DO access
: multiple classes with the same name, since Larry has (indirectly) promised
: us that? I.e., I import two classes LinkedList and BTree,
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:23:08PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: I don't know, but I think it's supposed to be like this:
:
: # part of the signature
: method turn($dir,$ang) is pre { $ang = 20 } {
: ...
: }
:
: #
On 11 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: I was thinking more along the lines of:
:
: $x $y
: $x ||| $y
:
: This isn't Perl; this is merely some language that looks a bit like
: it. I can understand the attraction for confusing anyone who comes
On 4 Oct 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: There are a very large number of good things that I think we should put
: into properties for meta-programming purposes (e.g. constraints,
: assertions, optimization hints, documentation, etc).
:
: For example:
:
: sub f(int $a is
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: I think that, for me at least, it'll be close enough to C to be
: really confusing. (I already have the problem of leaving parens off
: of my function calls when I write XS code...) There's a certain
: appeal to not having to swap in
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 16:40:04 -0700
: From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Draft Proposal: Declaring Classwide Attributes
:
: (Disclaimer: My purpose in proposing this is not to recommend it, but
: to document
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: When you say subclass, do you mean below the current class in the
: naming heirarchy, i.e.
:
: class BTree;
: our class Node {...}
:
: would create BTree::Node? Or do you really mean *subclass*, i.e., our
: class causes Node to inherit from BTree?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: We also need a signifier for class methods (assuming
: a distinction is made).
:
: Perhaps one could use an initial cap to indicate a class
: attribute/method:
:
: class foo {
: my $bar;# my is not used for attributes
: our $baz;# neither
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: The precedence is screwed up though. It'd have to be
:
: use Acme[ (1;17..) | (2;0..) ];
Or maybe this:
use Acme[1;17..] |
Acme[2;0..];
That doesn't, of course, express any preference for one version over another,
since | logically
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
: From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
: If we use | and as sugar for any() and all(), then their precedence
: should probably be the same as || and .
:
: Should they? I had in mind something just above
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: Anyway, I don't see offhand why composition can't simply be done with
: attributes as it is in C++, especially since attributes manifest as
: methods outside the class. I don't think $car.cd.eject() is all that
: horrible to contemplate.
By the way, ever
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: I've looked before for discussion of the rationale behind
: introducing attr/has and failed to find it. I noticed you
: mention Zurich, so perhaps this decision followed from
: discussion in living color (as against b+w).
:
: Anyhow, what was deemed wrong with
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Dan Kogai wrote:
: Objection, your honor.
:
: perl5 ($x $y) might be uncommon enough to justify this. But how
: about = vs. =, |= vs. ||= ? Those are both used very often so by
: saving one symbol we lose consistency.
Ouch. You're right. That's a bit of a problem for
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: You can certainly drop it within the methods,
: since there's also the accessor methods.
But I should point out that there's a semantic difference between
$.foo and .foo, in that $.foo is guaranteed to get my copy of the
attribute, while .foo might just
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: On Saturday, October 12, 2002, at 01:10 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 08:43:46 -0700 (PDT)
: From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
: If we use | and as sugar for any() and all(), then their precedence
: should probably
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Graham Barr wrote:
: Or even something like
:
: use Acme[1.0];
Hmm. Looks kinda like a subscript, which could be sliced to give an
acceptable version range:
use Acme[1;0..];
Except slices aren't powerful enough to say what you really want to say:
use
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Thanks, if it's looking like lvalues are really out I'll edit that draft
: to take out the lvalue stuff and do it the other way.
No, lvalue methods are definitely in, and pretty much always have been.
(There will be no problem with post-processing the
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: in
: http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg11440.html
: Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm wondering whether the single ones could indicate parallel streams.
: We had the difficulty of specifying whether the Cfor loop should
: terminate
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Aaron Crane wrote:
: Luke Palmer writes:
: Some of my students want to go:
:
: if ($x == 1 || 2) { ... }
:
: Now they can:
:
: if $x == 1 | 2 { ... }
:
: I like that a lot. (Some of my students also want to do that.)
:
: You can write an equivalent
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
: I like that idea:
:
:class SomeClass {
: method class_method ( Class $class: ... ) { ... }
: method instance_method ( SomeClass $self : ... ) { ... }
: method dont_care_method ( $self : ... ) { ... }
:}
:
: Or
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: I was going to say the same thing, but then I remembered that Perl 6
: methods, unlike the sub 'methods' in Perl 5, won't get the invocant as the
: first real argument--it will be the topic instead. And I don't think you
: can do multiple-dispatch on
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: in
: http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg11451.html
: Larry Wall wrote:
: for cases ^| newcases - $x is rw | $y {...}
:
: do I understand correctly that what happens is (more or less) --
: any($a,$b) := any($x,$y)
I don't think
If properties aren't entirely passive, then it may be possible to
register a callback on the tainted property itself that defeats any
misguided attempt to untaint it. It's unlikely to protect against
malicious attempts, however.
Larry
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: My temporary hack while writing the proto-recipes was that we'd have a
: property that would simply declare a method to be a class method, but
: I'm having a hard time coming up with an acceptable name to suggest for it:
:
: method foo is
On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: We haven't solved the problem of instance methods that want to
: reject class invocants at compile time. Though I suppose explicitly
: declaring the type of the invocant would have that effect. I'm sure
: there are some who would argue (and I might
: But then there's ~ vs ~~~ too.
:
: That gave me an idea. What about using the tilde as the first character
: in bitwise ops?
:
: $x ~ $y # bitwise and
: $x ~| $y # bitwise or
:
: ~!$x # bitwise not
I think I like that. Except now we'll get things like:
x ^~|= y;
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
: In Perl, variable names always begin with a special character called
: a sigil,
:
: Ahem, funny character. The Camel glossary has no entry for sigil
: (though I realize it's common terminology).
Sigil is fine these days.
Larry
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Where is the most definitive list of known Perl6 (not Parrot) builtin
: types?
:
: The following have been specified/implied by the A/Es:
:
: scalar
: bit (== bool? == boolean?)
We could always call them umu, which
On 16 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: : $x ~ $y # bitwise and
: : $x ~| $y # bitwise or
: :
: : ~!$x # bitwise not
:
: I think I like that. Except now we'll get things like:
:
: x ^~|= y;
:
: Hmm...and then there's:
:
: $a ~? $b ~: $c
:
: I
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: Shapiro, Jonathan:
: # Well, let's look at a few possibilities:
: #
: # 1) if( $vec bit| $mask bit $mask2 )
: #
: # 2) if( $vec b| $mask b $mask2 )
: #
: # 3) if( $vec |b $mask b $mask2 )
: #
: # 4) if( $vec |bit $mask bit $mask2 )
:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: As a productive prefix, it has limits, but there are actually very few
: operators that make sense to be bitified, and none of them look like a
: method name.
:
: Could users redefine how the prefixes work and get the productions for
: free?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:49:57
: Dan Sugalski wrote:
:
: Almost. At least perl 5's macros look like C. Emacs' macro horrors
: make C look like Lisp...
:
: This is because C is _clearly_ a dialect of Lisp . . .
Yeah, look at all the extra
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: Also, this brings to mind the one thing I actually remember about
: Sather, and as long as we're discussing operators...
:
: Will we have similar to Sather's ::=? That was essentially the
: statically type this variable at run-time based on the type
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
:
: Really what I've been wishing for was an operator (or whatever) to let me do an
: s// without changing the variable.
:
: I would hope/expect that that's what the subroutine form of Cs would do.
The problem with defining
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: Maybe , my question really is , how perl will behave if I will do
:
: sub operator:=+ (str $x, str $y) { system( $x | $y ) } ;
:
: so this is more question of qrammar ?
The general rule in most lexers has always been that it grabs the
longest token it can
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Deborah Ariel Pickett wrote:
: Which looks better?
: if ($a == 1|2|3 || $b eq x|y|z)
: or
: if ($a == 1||2||3 | $b eq x||y||z)
: ?
I think disjunctions of data values should be | and disjunctions of expressions
should be ||, so that the bigger concept has the bigger
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:$str1 ~ $str2# $str1 =~ m/$str2/
That would be a smart match, not m/$str2/.
:$str ~ /foo/ # $str1 =~ m/foo/
That would work.
:$str2 = ($str ~ /foo/bar/); # perform subst, assign result to $str2
:
:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: Going back to Perl5 for a moment, we have
:
: substr($str,$start,$len) = $newstr
:
: why not simply extend pattern-matching in a similar way to substr, making it
: an L-value, so that one gets
:
: $str ~ /[aeiou]+/ = vowels($)
:
: or
:
:
On 25 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: But think of what macros in general provide:
:
:* Multi-platform compatability
:* Easier maintenance
: * Creating/Embedding custom languages. aka - adapting the
:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Since it's been a full month since the start of the monster operator
: precedence thread, here's what I've been able to gather as the
: revised, new-and-improved list of Perl6 operators, IF we did all the
: xor/cat/regex-related changes as discussed
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
: one-arg universal method?
The Perl 5 definition of named unary op is an operator with the
precedence of UNIOP in perly.c.
: E.g. why are temp and let both ops but
: my, our, hash
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
: one-arg universal method?
I didn't give the other half of the answer. A method is a term,
not an operator. It's the . in front of it that's the operator...
It's just that, in
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: So many operators...
:
: It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
: least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
:
: It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
: too
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry mused:
:
:
: Now I'm wondering whether these should be split into:
:
: ++|+! - bitwise operations on int
: += +|= +!=
:
: ~~|~! - bitwise operations on str
: ~= ~|=
On 26 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
: But our version of understandable still means a steep, steep learning
: curve.
:
: It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
: curve has a 180 degree turn.
:
: Quick: what are the
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: * are stream separators ; | in the for loop - operators
: in the usual sence ( like , ) or they are pure grammar ?
If ;, probably operator, though behaving a bit differently on
the left of - than on the right, since the right is essentially
a signature.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:57:01 -0700
: From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: To: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Cc: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED],
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: Perl6 Operator List
:
: Larry Wall
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: I suspect disjunctive superpositions will get a great deal
: of use as sets, and so the ability to add an element to an
: existing set:
:
: $set |= $new_element;
:
: might be appreciated. But it's no big thing.
Or maybe it is a big thing.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
:
: my Pet @list = qm : name type breed {
: fido dog collie
: fluffy cat siamese
: };
:
: That's still a lot easier to type than some of the alternatives I've
: had to do for larger
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: $union{a} # A | ant
Of course, the interesting question at this point is what
$union{a} = axiomatic;
does if there's more than one hash in the superposition.
Larry
On 26 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm thinking we need a rule that says you can't put a space before a
: dereferencing (...),
:
: I'm concerned that making this sensitive to whitespace doesn't simplify
: things.
:
: print(length $a), \n;
: print (length $a), \n
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: : my @attrs = qw{ name type breed }
: : my Pet @list=qw{
: :fido dog collie
: :fluffy cat siamese
: : } ~~ sub (@x) { map { _ = _ } @attrs x Inf ^, @x }
: :~~ sub (@x) { map { {
On 27 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: : Distinguishing them sounds scary, much scarier than having C$a _ 1
: : being different from C$a_1.
:
: But we already have exactly the same distinction with
:
: $foo{ $bar }
: $foo { $bar
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Steve Canfield wrote:
: Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
:
: BLAH:
: if ($foo) {
: ...
: last BLAH if $bar;
: ...
: }
I don't see why we need it offhand. But we might well have something
that returns out of the innermost {...} anyway, so
On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: why not use - to create a sub which you can return from?
:
: if $foo - {
: ...
: return if $bar;
: ...
: }
Except that by the current rule you can only Creturn from something
that is declared with the word sub. -{...} is still just a fancy
block
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: 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
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 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
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes:
I mislike \ for xor, primarily because it doesn't fit into the current
escape mystique of \.
Larry
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: How about leave?
Right, that brings back some memories.
: leave
: SURROUNDING | [SURROUNDING]IDENTIFIER
: [ [result] VALUE-SPEC ];
:
: Aliases:
: =
: return - leave sub
Right.
: exit - leave program (or is it thread?)
Hmm.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Does xor really need the punctuation? Does xor really need to be a
: primitive?
:
: Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
: likely to be more
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Well, I don't believe in none since it's really easy to say !any()
:
: Does that have any implications for unless?
No. unless reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
(When
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
: Could we please, please, please have bitwise operators be out of the
: core. We expect that they are not going to be used by the average
: user, so it looks fair to apply the ultimate negative huffman
: enconding: they need to be specially required.
:
:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the presence of the operator
Er, *what* operator?
: (and speaking of low-frequency operators, what about bitwise rotation?
: Will that be the (( and )) operators?)
I think those will be rejected by anyone who uses either vi or emacs.
On 29 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: : why not use - to create a sub which you can return from?
: :
: : if $foo - {
: : ...
: : return if $bar;
: : ...
: : }
:
: Except that by the current rule
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Dyck wrote:
: I admit that I use pack, bitwise operators, as well as 0x constants
: in many of my scripts. I'm not sure what Angel means by taking
: some of these things out of the core, but if my short perl5 scripts
: start to grow to python length I'll have less
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: Perhaps the best thing to do is to define a word operator for
: superpositions and, if they later become really popular, snag some
: generally-available* extended character to represent the operators.
Sorry, I believe in the transactional model of QM,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:13:39AM +0200, Markus Laire wrote:
: Also the idea of allways using 'function' style for something so
: basic like superpositions doesn't appeal to me.
:
: Superpositions are basic in a fabric-of-the-universe kind of
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:x [+]= y;
:
: I guess that's OK looking, tho either is fine with me.
My only syntactic quibble with [+] is that it's officially ambiguous
when it's a unary operator:
a = [+]b
could also be the start of
a = [+1, +2, +3]
Or worse:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
:(is whitespace allowed inside the brackets, e.g. [ + ] vs. [+] ?)
I don't think so.
: unary (prefix) operators:
:. - method call on current topic
I think we have to have unary .= as well, if we're to do the
.=replace
trick on $_.
:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: For this version of the operator list, (since I am unsure that _every_
: unary/binary op has a meaningful hyper, and some tentatively have
: _two_) I have placed all of them in EXPLICITLY. Please check that I
: didn't miss any, or put any in that
On 30 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
: (I'm thinking utf8 here).
:
: I'd strongly advise against that.
Actually, it works out rather well in practice, because the string
abstraction in Perl is that of a sequence of codepoints. But at
least in Perl 5,
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Martin D Kealey wrote:
: Hmmm...
:
: I've heard that this is a culturally driven thing: that whilst people can
: all disambiguate it, people from different cultures may do so differently
:
: In a western culture, exclusive-or is the assumed default unless context
: implies
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
:
:for x | y - $x is rw | $y {
:$x += $y
:}
:
: This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
: wondering why we were iterating with superpositions
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Brent Dax wrote:
: (I think that at one point you mentioned that 'it' is implicit in
: Japanese--so does $_ qualify? :^) )
Only when you leave it out. Kind of like the cat.
Larry
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Larry Wall [mailto:larry;wall.org] wrote:
: : unary (postfix) operators:
: :... - [maybe] same as ..Inf [Damian votes Yes]
:
: I wonder if we can possibly get the Rubyesque leaving out of
: endpoints by saying something like 1..!10
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: [op] - as prefix to any unary/binary operator, vectorizes the
: operator
:
: What, if any, guarantees are there about the order of evaluation for
: vectorized operations?
:
: If I say
:
: b = a[.meth];
:
: and .meth has a side-effect, what
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: a x+ b
: a `+ b
: a ^+ b# I like this one best ;-)
:
: if we did go back to using ^ for hyper I have no clue what to do about
: xor. I'd suggest % but I use the modulus too much.
Gee, % looks kinda like an X.
Larry
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
: In the Re: Wh[ie]ther Infix Superposition ops thread
:
: On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
:
: But given a decent Collection hierarchy:
:
: my $seen = Set.new($start,$finish);
:
: for - $next {
: print $next unless $next =~
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
:
: So despite the beauty of
:
: @a [+] @b
:
: I think it cannot survive in its current form. It overloads square
: brackets too heavily.
:
: Larry
:
:
: so may be @a + @b
:
: @a = @b
: @a , @b
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: My own backup proposals would be:
:
: h+
: h[+]
:
: or similar, e.g. give the brackets a prefix to differentiate them
: firmly as 'hyper'. Personally, I still don't mind that extra char,
: because it makes it extra-super-obvious; as we've
301 - 400 of 2342 matches
Mail list logo
