On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:16:00PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: ...but I'm not sure if this is just one of Damian's Crazy Ideas(tm)
: or if it'll actually end up as a standard part of the Perl 6 language.
I've never considered the two to be mutually exclusive. :-)
Larry
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:14:55AM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: class Animal {
: our @.zoo;
: new.wrap( {
: my @results = call();
: push(@.zoo, @results[0]);
: return @results;
: } );
: }
That would almost certainly fail with an
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:00:27PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: role Logging {
: POST {
: foreach ( ::_.meta.getmethods() ) - $method {
: $method.wrap( {
: log($somewhere, calling $method);
: call;
:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 01:36:39PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 16:20, Richard Proctor wrote:
: Issues:
:
: 1) Why does this only use Version and Author? Suppose there are versions
: for different oses or that use other particular libraries that are wanted
: or not?
:
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 03:41:58PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: but: what if Animal does inherits from something else? what I would like
: to do (what I was trying to do with wrappers, that is) is to call the
: inherited constructor, then do something with the returned object.
: something like:
:
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:02:14AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Hmm... I'm quite sure that I like ~ better than + for mnemonic purposes.
:
: I agree.
I think + is easier to see. Mnemonic value is a secondary issue in
something that will be used so heavily.
Larry
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 04:25:45PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
: In this case, the reliance on saying:
:
: if (+$x 9) ...
:
: to disambiguate logical/arithmetic/string/whatever context in expressions is
: going to sit at cross purposes to the +-as-required-arg usage. It'll be yet
:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 01:06:29AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Therefore, the first syntax can be redefined to evaluate the code block
: and assign the result to $0. The example now becomes:
:
: rule list {
: ?term , ?list { make_node('list', $?term, $?list) }
: | ?term
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 01:52:45PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: At 10:44 AM -0700 5/6/04, chromatic wrote:
: On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 10:39, Aaron Sherman wrote:
:
: The simple case is:
:
: sub foo(X $i is rw) {...}
: class X {...}
: class Y {...}
: my Y $var = 'something';
:
On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 06:32:28PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Damian Conway writes:
: Austin Hastings wrote:
:
: Hmm. For junctions I was thinking:
:
:++ all([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
:
: Which is almost readable.
:
: But unfortunately not correct. Junctions are value, not lvalues.
:
On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 11:54:23AM -0700, Chris wrote:
: I may have missed an obvious answer to this question, but has any thought
: been given to allowing for variables which behave as though ever operation
: on them is the hyper version of that operation? Sort of an automagical way
: of
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 12:34:44PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
: since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
: function prototyping (signatures?), I wonder wether it will be possible
: to specify a
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 11:59:03AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
: Hash: SHA1
:
: Michele Dondi wrote:
:
: | I don't know if this is already provided by current specifications, but
: | since I know of Perl6 that is will support quite a powerful system of
: |
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:50:03AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: That one doesn't work. Named arguments have to come at the end of the
: parameter list (just before the data list, if there is one). This is
: a decision I'm gradually beginning to disagree with, because of:
:
: sub repeat
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Scott Bronson skribis 2004-06-24 10:44 (-0700):
: However, it seems that because Perl is finally getting a typing system,
: this hack can be fixed in Perl itself! No programmer intervention
: needed. Undef and '' can be false for
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:44:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-06-24 11:29 (-0700):
: This is Perl 6. Everything is an object, or at least pretends to be one.
: Everything has a .boolean method that returns 0 or 1. All conditionals
: call the .boolean method, at least
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 04:19:25PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: What do you mean by length?
:
: For a string, it obviously either means number of bytes or number
: of characters. Pick one, document it, and let people who want the
: other semantic use
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 03:24:25PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
: I want an okay. Routines should be able to return okay to indicate
: an ambivalent degree of success. okay would be defined as true | false,
Some messages want to be simultaneously Warnocked and not Warnocked...
Larry
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: You could coin the abbreviation ligs, for Language Independent
: Graphemes. Then some ingenious rascal can create a pragma or whatever
: that allows $str.b, $str.c, $str.g, and $str.l for fans of terseness.
Except
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Considering that:
:
: $obj.meth foo;
:
: No longer needs parentheses, and that argument processing is done on the
: callee rather than the caller side (well, most of the time), do I still
: have to predeclare Cfoo if I want to
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:34:16AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: This has no direct bearing on p6l, since performance is a p6i issue.
: But perhaps in the interests of performance as well as hackery we
: should explicitly
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:09:51PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 10:52:34AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: : On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:34:16AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: : This has no direct bearing on p6l, since performance is a p6i issue.
: : But perhaps
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 09:32:07PM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: how 'bout
:
: @x = gather{
: loop{
: take time
: }
: } # can this be @x = gather { take time loop }
: push @x, later;
: say pop @x;# later
Can probably be made to work right.
: say pop @x;# heat death?
Yes.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 03:03:49PM -0400, JOSEPH RYAN wrote:
: Sure. The parser won't care what kind of characters
: make up the operator, as long as its defined by the
: time the operator is encountered. The operator
: rules in the grammar will probably be as simple as this:
:
: # where x is
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 04:49:33AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Michele Dondi writes:
: On the wild side of things, could there be the possibility of even
: defining new ones?
:
: That's what I meant by:
:
: grammatical_category:postcircumfix
:
: Though it wouldn't be so magical as to just
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 11:46:25AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: With an array
: match, you might find yourself redispatching individual operators in a
: switch statement to provide that kind of specificity.
In particular, macros with is parsed will want to have a place to
hang their special parse
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
: instead?
:
: A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
:
: print,next if /stgh/;
:
:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
: Would that not be:-
:
: say Basename is $(str.subst(rx|.*/|, ''))
:
: I thought when you were interpolating method calls you had to put brackets
: $(object.meth), so that you could still write things like:-
:
: $fh =
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Will there be a statement modifier version of Cwhen?
:
: print, next when /stgh/;
Yes, though in this case it's indistinguishable from Cif, since //
defaults to $_ anyway. However, these are different:
print, next when
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: : Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
: :
: : { print; next; } if|when /stgh
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:56:41AM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote:
: Hello everybody,
:
: I'm about to learn myself perl6 (after using perl5 for some time).
I'm also trying to learn perl6 after using perl5 for some time. :-)
: One of my first questions deals with regexes.
:
:
: I'd like to parse
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:58:49AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
: declare that there can't
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:12:54AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: perl is filled with functions which do different things in different
: contexts. It seems that in perl6 with plenty of new contexts, it will
: be even more stimuls for that habit. So real question is:
: in expression C
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:12:03AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:rand(@x) == @x.rand == @x[ rand int @x ] == @x[ rand(1) * @x ]
:
: guaranteeing a uniform distribution unless adverbial modifiers are
: used.
The hard part being to pick a random
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 11:11:58AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The hard part being to pick a random number in [0,Inf) uniformly. :-)
:
: Half of all numbers in [0, Inf) are in the range [Inf/2, Inf). Which
: collapses to the range [Inf, Inf
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:24:55AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
: mode string: you can specify them through named parameters:
:
: my $fh = open $filename :excl;
While that probably works, I think better style would be to
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:41:32AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: While that probably works, I think better style would be to use a
: comma:
:
: my $fh = open $filename, :excl;
:
: That explicitly passes :excl to open as a term in a list
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:25:52PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Luke Palmer skribis 2004-07-13 7:24 (-0600):
: But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
: mode string: you can specify them through named parameters:
: my $fh = open $filename :excl;
:
: I was hoping we
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 11:06:30PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: No, just currently wrong. :-) I changed my mind about it in A12,
: partly on the assumption that $object.attr would actually be more
: common than $file.ext,
:
: Speaking
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 10:23:18AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Another alternative is $( $file ).ext. I'd tend to use that before
: ${file}.ext these days. Perhaps that's irrational--but it was hard
: to get the special-case ${name} form to work right in the Perl 5
: lexer, and that bugs me
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:44:11PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:24:55AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: : But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
: : mode string: you can specify them through named
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:40:01PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: TMTOWTDI can apply here, I believe. You give me my way, I'll give you
: yours. Leave me open with all my parameters, and you can have your list
: of file abstraction classes. I could see having those classes part of
: core, if there's
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 09:55:14PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: It is possible to construct a group that includes infinities, but NI
: isn't it, and for Perl purposes it doesn't seem necessary.
Though if someone wants to hack surreals into 6.1, that'd be cool. :-)
Larry
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: My preference is $file\.ext. Clear, light and ascii.
:
: That's fine as far as it goes, but how do you say what, in Perl 5, I
: would use this for:
:
: ${foo}n
:
: I like the ${} syntax, but I'm a shell guy from my early
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:20:56PM -0400, Damian Conway wrote:
: So what about:
:
: $foo[$i]
: $foo{$k}
:
: ???
Those would work.
: And would slices interpolate?
Yes. Slices are entirely determined by what's in the subscript.
: I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:46AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: some questions:
:
: 1) is @a[1][2]{'a'}«b» interpolateable?
Yes.
: and what about @a[1]('arg')[3]?
I can argue that both ways, but overall it seems like it won't cause
much of a problem, and keeps () in the same mental
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:35:10PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: This doesn't quite feel right to me. I was really a big fan of the good
: ol' Perl 6 days where you could interpolate as in Perl 5, and method
: calls required parentheses. I understand why Larry wanted to take out
: the parentheses,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:13:29PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 2004-07-21 at 09:42:44, Larry Wall wrote:
: Plus it ignores the fact that we've already introduced single character
: scalar context operators that make it trivial to coerce from list
: context to scalar. If {...} supplies list
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:00:39PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 19:35, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
: array object with which you're dealing:
:
: my @foo does separator('//') = (1,2,3,4,5);
: say
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for everything is.
:
:
: maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ? %foo{..} should also be
: allowed, of course (which
: unfortunately is not a short
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:36:51PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
: The equivalent regex syntax isn't interpolating, even to the extent that
: a bare $foo or @bar is, so this would be sort of a false cognate--IMHO
: another reason not to have interpolating {}.
:
:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:42:48PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: and how do you force scalar context without a scalar() or $() wrapper
: around the expression in {}? hard to say whether scalar or list context
: is more popular and so would get the huffman prize. i liked @() and $()
: for both
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:31:08AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I used $d='b' ,and not $d=b above, just because it should be $d=\b\
: yes, I know, perl5 parser makes several passes on quotes, and when it sees
: open quote, it finds closing quote first, then parses all inside.
: AFAIK, perl6
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:06:55PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 10:24 (-0700):
: Interpolates
: NoYes
: -----
: @foo @foo[1]
: %bar %bar{a}
: $foo.bar $foo.bar()
:
: Oh, please don't do that.
:
: Whatever
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:24PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: Johan Vromans [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:
: : my $d=a;
: : print --$d--{my $d = b }--$d--\n;
:
: Yes, that is correct.
:
: I'm afraid things like this will keep many
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:59:30AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
:
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but, by analogy with $foo.bar(), ...
:
: No Yes
: -- ---
: @foo@foo[1]
: %bar%bar{a} or %bar«a»
: $foo.bar$foo.bar()
: foo
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:16:09AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: No Yes
: -- ---
: @foo@foo[1]
: %bar%bar{a} or %bar«a»
: $foo.bar$foo.bar()
: foo foo(1)
:
: I may have missed it, but what are the contexts
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
: On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:37:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: We allowed/required @foo to interpolate in Perl 5, and it catches a
: certain number of people off guard regularly, including yours truly.
: So I can argue [EMAIL
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 04:51:52PM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: This would require 'cpan' to parse the script with a modified grammar
: that noted all the 'use's (and 'require's, I guess), then install each
: module. Or something like that.
:
: Hmm...maybe this could be done for
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:33:01PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: But then an interesting point, and one that has already
: been raised, is that it should be somehow possible to customize string
: interpolation bu means of e.g. adverbs (fortunately we don't have true
: literal strings but rather
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:48:59PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: JOSEPH RYAN writes:
: When I think about your description of xxx, I
: summarized it in my head as Call a coderef a certain
: number of times, and then collect the results.
: That's pretty much what map is, except that xxx is
:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: 2. Really core. This is the sort of standard library. Just the most
: essential bits that are required for general Perl usability. You'd
: probably include most of these, even in a trimmed down release, such
: as an OS installer
:
:
On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 11:41:14PM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 01:32:29AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: : 2. Really core. This is the sort of standard library. Just the most
: : essential bits that are required for general Perl usability. You'd
: : probably
it.
Larry
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 10:13:27 -0700
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: resolution of method argument parsing issues
Okay, after mulling over this for two days and going over the same
mental ground repeatedly, I've come to some conclusions. First,
it's a mistake to try
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 02:21:30PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: All this talk of blocks and Ruby (and A12 Lookahead Notions) brings up
: an important question in my mind: how will Perl 6 handle multiple
: blocks? When using Ruby, I found blocks both easy and pretty. But I
: found writing a
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 07:05:28PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: LW : splurt + 1 # same??
: LW : splurt +1 # work on +1??
:
: so how do the 2 above get parsed? the space between + and 1 looks alike
: a 0-ary splurt but the +1 could be 0-ary added to 1 or unary with +1 as
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: You know, at some point you just break down and write them positionally:
:
: @array.each( { $^odd.bar() }, { $^even.baz() });
:
: Speaking of which, let's talk a little bit about how I'd write these
: methods. After looking
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:19:29PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: i have no issue with splurt() being needed to disambiguate. i just
: wanted to see your take (this week :) on it as i felt the table was
: ambiguous so far. as far as making it a warning, wouldn't that make the
: warning space
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 12:32:30AM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
:Doesn't the concept of an anonymous named param (in the fourth and fifth
: examples above) seem like an oxymoron? If it's anonymous it can't have a
: name (or at least we can't know its name).
It's anonymous only in the sense that
Here's the current precedence table as I see it, based mostly
on what the, er, cabal came up with after the Perl conference.
[Cabal members: note that I've demoted cmp and = from chaining
relationals, and I've moved the pipe operators closer together.
I've also generalized the two middle
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 08:42:51AM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote:
:
: On Aug 14, 2004, at 12:17 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
: Here's the current precedence table as I see it, based mostly
: on what the, er, cabal came up with after the Perl conference.
:
: Okay, time to get out the quill and parchment
=head1 Title
Synopsis 1: Overview
=head1 Author
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=head1 Version
Maintainer:
Date:
Last Modified:
Number: 1
Version: 0
This document summarizes Apocalypse 1, which covers the initial
design concept. (These Synopses also contain updates
=head1 Title
Synopsis 2: Bits and Pieces
=head1 Author
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=head1 Version
Maintainer: your name here
Date:
Last Modified:
Number: 2
Version: 0
This document summarizes Apocalypse 2, which covers small-scale
lexical items and typological issues
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:56:34PM +, Smylers wrote:
: A bare closure also interpolates in double-quotish context. It may
: not be followed by any dereferencers, since you can always put them
: inside the closure. ... The old disambiguation syntax ... is dead.
: Use closure curlies
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:56:34PM +, Smylers wrote:
: You may interpolate a package name into an identifier using
: C::($expr) where you'd ordinarily put the package name. The parens
: are required.
:
: XXX Actually, C::{$expr} might be made to work instead, given that
: that's how
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 02:12:53PM -0700, Mark Lentczner wrote:
: I apologize if the answers to these questions are in the list
: somewhere, but I can't find any archive of this list that lets me
: search for things like ^..^ or ?= !
:
: In reviewing the operator precedence table update, I have
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:43:19AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Adam D. Lopresto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The modifier to turn off warnings on a line would be ;), winking at
: us to let us know it's up to something.
:
: I wondered about paren-after-semi, and thought about Cfor(;;).
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 06:02:13PM +, Smylers wrote:
: David Storrs writes:
: Just checking--whitespace doesn't count, right?
:
: foo(1,2,3);# Func with 3 args
: foo (1,2,3); # Same exact thing
:
: You quote Larry's text about methods, then give an example using
:
I think this is something the optimizer could use to eliminate an
ordinary return that happens to be followed by a call to a known
set of something elses. So it might well help things like switch
statements and cascaded function calls and tail recursion (and maybe
invocation of autoloaded
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 08:57:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: You'll also want to make sure the zip operator (¥) gets in there,
: probably with the same precedence as == (unless we decide it's
: a scalar-only operator, in which case it can be tighter because it
: would only work on array refs
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:02:57PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: To get a Perlish representation of any data value, use the C.repr
: method. This will put quotes around strings, square brackets around
: list values, curlies around hash values, etc
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 05:08:55AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Well, Cfor $foo gives you a one-iteration loop. But perhaps list
: flatten could work on iterators:
:
: for *$foo { ... }
I dislike that purely on visual grounds in the case of
for *$*IN { ... }
But I expect most folks
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:53:06AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: I like each best though. Why exactly can't it work?
It could be made to work. The sources of cognitive interference are:
1. Perl 5's each(%hash) function, which is probably not a problem.
2. Ruby's array.each {|x|
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 01:54:39PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: That is very tickley. But there's another kind of dissonance there.
: @array.pull needs to take arguments[1] when called with list pull,
: otherwise it's basically useless.
It's not useless if you just want to interpolate an entire
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 05:26:38PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: In scalar context a non-destructive read of an iterator might
: be called $iter.peek and the next .read will get (and remove)
: the same value that .peek returns. Implementation would be
: fairly simple - the control info for an
=head1 Title
Synopsis 4: a Summary of Apocalypse 4
=head1 Author
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=head1 Version
Maintainer:
Date:
Last Modified:
Number: 4
Version: 0
This document summarizes Apocalypse 4, which covers the block and
statement syntax of Perl.
=head1
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:21:02AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: It would be nice if rand behaved a bit more sanely in Perl 6. I can
: understand the reasoning for making rand 0 produce between 0 and 1, but
: that doesn't mean I have to like it.
What makes you think there was any reasoning
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:18:06AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Whither REDO {...} ? Or do we just manufacture that ourselves with
: NEXT?
Hmm, well, you can view Credo as just a Cgoto TOP in disguise,
or as a Cnext that suppresses the while check. But I think it's
seldom enough used
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:04:48AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Parameters are by default constant within the block. You can
: declare a parameter read/write by including the Cis rw trait.
: If you rely on C$_ as the implicit parameter to a block, then
: then C$_ is considered read/write by
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:49:17AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: method postcircumfix: ($self: *%opt) returns List {
: scalar $self.*%opt, $self.*%opt # [1]
: }
:
: [1] Look, Larry, I had to use Cscalar! Maybe we _do_ need to revive
: $()!
It's not clear to me that $() would
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:52:56PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Unfortunately, the only obvious one, 's', is taken.
I remind myself that 'S' is equally obvious, and not taken. Like _,
it suffers from spacing issues, but could be the ASCII backup for
the § character. (As Y is likely
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:07:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: I'm proposing
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) - $foo, $bar, $xyzzy { ... }
: for %quux.kv - $key, $value { ... }
That'd probably work on the keys only if the hash was declared to have
object keys. At least in Perl 5, the key
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 12:39:35AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry, you're a genius.
Yeah, well, that and 150 cents'll get me a cup of coffee...
Larry
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:46:33PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
:
: for zip @a ¥ @b - { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
:
: Shouldn't that be:
:
: for zip
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: Adverbs are confusing me mightily lately.
:
: It may be that Larry's A12 revision just needs a few examples
: *with* parenthesis to straighten me out.
:
: Here are some semi-coherent attempts to sort it out
: in my mind. Please
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:18:55PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Only a sig of () makes it *not* look for an argument as a list operator.
That's overstated. Only a sig of () or ($x) or (?$x) suppresses
list operator-ness on ordinary function names.
Larry
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 06:12:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: :
: :say .meth :foo;# say( .meth( foo=1 ) )
:
: That one works.
:
: But that's because :foo is an adverb to .meth, not because .meth
On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 12:03:10AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I've already had my epiphany about POD, though, so I'll spare doing it
: again. In short, there are two things that I see about POD that need to
: change:
:
: =over
:
: =item 1)
:
: C=directive lines shouldn't have to be in their
On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 08:04:48AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
: Sorry if this has already been asked and answered, but in doing a little research
about Perl 6
: mixins (http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=384858), I ran into some questions
that I
: couldn't figure from either A12 or Perl 6 and
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 03:34:20PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: My question is, is there anything that can be done within Perl 6 to help
: alleviate this issue.
All lists function lazily if they can in Perl 6.
Larry
701 - 800 of 2343 matches
Mail list logo
