Re: Proposal: split ternary ?? :: into binary ?? and //
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: So let's go ahead and make it ??!!. (At least this week...) I hereby christen this the interrobang operator. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang) -- Your fault: core dumped -- MegaHAL
Re: Declarations of constants
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Kennedy) writes:
Forgive my ignorance here, but for all of these different ways of
doing constants, will they all optimize (including partial
evaluation/currying) at compile/build/init/run-time?
Gosh, I hope not.
my $gravity is constant = 10; # One significant figure
sub time_to_ground ($height, $accel) {
...acceleration math...
}
The ability to play around with the working of time_to_ground before it
runs is one of the things I like about Perl.
--
A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program
in than some that do.
-- Dennis M. Ritchie
Anonymous classes
Hello,
I'm having a seriously good time porting Maypole to Perl 6. If you
still have reservations about how Perl 6 is going to be to program in,
I urge you to try programming in it.
Now, commercial over, I have some questions.
What's the syntax for declaring inherited anonymous classes, and
then adding methods to them?
I've realised that anonymous classes are an excellent solution to
subclassing *related* classes - for instance, you have a Foo class which
creates Foo::Request and Foo::Response objects, and when you subclass
Foo, you may want to specialise things in Foo::Request and Foo::Response
as well. So instead you go:
class Foo {
has Class $.request_class is rw;
method BUILD {
$.request_class = class is Foo::Request; # Or whatever
}
}
And then you have a request class that is a singleton class to each
Foo instantiation, which can be specialized however your particular
Foo subclass needs.
--
Almost any animal is capable learning a stimulus/response association,
given enough repetition.
Experimental observation suggests that this isn't true if double-clicking
is involved. - Lionel, Malcolm Ray, asr.
Re: Anonymous classes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ingo Blechschmidt) writes:
I think the only thing you're missing are two braces:
$.request_class = class is Foo::Request {};
Thank you; then how do I put methods into $.request_class?
--
I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware.
-- Peter da Silva
Re: What Requires Core Support (app packaging)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Hursh) writes: Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried to get a department of mine to switch over to perl from csh and REXX of all things, I have co-workers I hope never see this. They may need to write their own operating system if they want to avoid the dodgy software rot entirely. :) -- If you give a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Re: What Requires Core Support (app packaging)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes: PAR doesn't compile or precompile to bytecode, it packages, temp-expands, and runs. It *could* do this, but loading bytecode in Perl 5 is slower than loading and compiling source, so there's not really much point. What's so magic about bytecode, anyway? Within the realm of what it does, PAR is pretty amazing. But the internals are (necessarily) very ugly and fragile. In what way? How have you managed to break it? -- I would have more respect for Ruby if its docs were not in ALL YOUR BASE format. - Dennis Taylor
Re: What Requires Core Support (app packaging)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes: Don't you think it's preferable to temp-expanding and compiling at runtime? Not if it's slower, no. The choice was made not to go with bytecode because of a deficiency in Perl. If that deficiency wasn't there, then sure, go with bytecode. But you're missing the point, so I'll say it again: IT DOESN'T MATTER. The slides about the internals do start with Here begins the scary part For heaven's sake. Have you even *seen* the Perl 5 internals? If you don't trust things which are self-declared scary hackery to be stable, you probably shouldn't be using Perl until Perl 6 comes out. And probably not until then. Look, we're not going to agree on this. Should we just drop the subject? -- Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained. -- The Tao of Programming
Re: S4: Can PRE and POST be removed from program flow?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes: there's an official way, you'll certainly see less wheel reinvention than in Perl 5. This is a good thing. That is only true if you accept the fundamentalist principle that one should never reinvent wheels. If that were true, then we wouldn't be working on Perl 6. The standardized class, method, submethod, and so on in Perl 6 will be an absolute breath of fresh air. Don't worry; people will soon create their own helper modules anyway. There'll still be More Than One Way To Do It, like it or not. Furthermore, every non-core implementation will necessarily be uglier than the built-in system. Again, this is dogma. If the core specifies every minute detail of what you can do with the language, it's going to be far uglier than any module or implementation you can come up with. Although the Perl motto is There's More Than One Way To Do It, I hesitate to make 10 ways to do something. The trick is to only make one way to do lots of things. The Perl core should be about facilitating cool stuff, not legislating it. -- Why do programmers get Halloween and Christmas mixed up? Because OCT(31) == DEC(25)
Re: S4: Can PRE and POST be removed from program flow?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes: Anyway, what it'll give me is official support for this type of thing. Call me a crazy man, but I *like* the lack of official support. I actually count it as a Good Thing that perl can be made to do cool stuff without Larry having to explicitly declare that it's OK. -- Do you associate ST JOHN'S with addiction to ASIA FILE? - Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
Re: push with lazy lists
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Storrs) writes: Does it even make sense to take the Infiniteth element of an array? You should have used a hash in the first place. -- BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentation. -Ari Suntioinen
Re: scalar subscripting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
Could methods like [] and {} *default* to postcircumfix:?
A more interesting question is does it mean anything for them *not* to be
postcircumfix?
After all, the only other use would be $foo.[]($bar, $baz), which is
practically identical. Unless you want to make [$foo] the default, and I
suspect that would be unwise.
--
Also note that i knew _far_ more about the people that call address
mungers names like 'lusers', 'egoists' or try to make luser giraffes.
-- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-06
Re: A stack for Perl?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: $_='foo bar baz'; split; # @STACK now is (1, 'foo', 'bar', 'baz'); I can imagine some uses for that... Sick... and... wrong. :-) Not only would it mess with what things have to do in void context, it would fudge up the garbage collector to no end. Only as much as it currently does in Perl 5. To boot, I can't think of a way to implement that in currently-defined Perl 6, which should scare you. No, you see, that's not an argument for not putting something in the language. The fact that you *can* already do it in pure Perl 6 is a good reason for not putting something in, (because it may be superfluous) but by dismissing something which is currently impossible, you ensure that it remains impossible. This doesn't mean I like @STACK, I think it's a strange idea, but for different reasons. :) -- People in a Position to Know, Inc.
Re: definitions of truth
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes: Do note that I realize I can check it. It's just that for no reason I can quite define, my C background wants a null byte to be FALSE without any special chicanery on my part when checking. I can live with the fact it isn't going to be, it just seems odd to me. Has this problem ever bitten you in Perl coding so far? I don't think I've ever seen a bug in code that turned out to be because of 0.0 being true, either; I'm sure someone can find an example, but it's extremely rare. -- Do you associate ST JOHN'S with addiction to ASIA FILE? - Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
Re: Simon Cozens has really painful hands
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: message is something I really need to respond to, I probably won't reply for the time being or will reply curtly. The difference? Yeah, I doubt anyone will notoice. Feel better, Simon. Thanks. And no thanks to whatever worm it was that caused my vacation program to respond to a mail that's evidently a fake. Sorry about that, folks. -- OK. Enter system password, out of ttys, can't fork process, Panic Double Panic, can't open socket, bad magic number, NO ROUTE TO HOST, hme is down, stale file handle, /var is full, and it's January 1970. - sing, sing, halt
Re: RFC eq and ==
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chromatic) writes: Is 10 a string? Is it a number? Is 10base-T a string? Is it a number? Is an object with overloaded stringification and numification a number? Is it a string? I don't know a good heuristic for solving these problems. If you have one, it's worth considering though. Use =~ for all these kinds of comparison. No, I'm not being facetious, at least not intentionally. -- At Friday's meeting I did get a chance to call a spade an earth-moving bloody implement of damn-and-blasted wood and bastard metal construction. - Red Drag Diva
Re: C style conditional statements
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: familiar. You'll find this in the earlier Exegeses, Piers Cawley's article Perl 6: Not Just for Damians (http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html), some of the presentations from the last few conference seasons, and scattered about the community. These things are all convincing examples of how friendly and familiar Perl 6 was three years ago. -- The best index to a person's character is a) how he treats people who can't do him any good and b) how he treats people who can't fight back. -- Abigail Van Buren
Re: C style conditional statements
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
is it really that new and scary?
No, but not for the reasons you think. You seem to believe that you're
comparing Perl and a Perl-derived language and pointing out that they're
both like Perl, but it looks like you're comparing two Algol-derived
languages and pointing out that they both look like Algol.
By declaring any change between the two code examples to be good in your
subjective opinion you mentally absolve any difference in Perlness,
which means that you don't actually address the issue at all:
Ok, fine. No big deal.
good change IMHO.
Again, a good visual change,
Aye, but changes they are!
Ok, another:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use IO::Socket::INET;
$n=IO::Socket::INET-new(LocalPort=20010,Listen=5);
$n-listen();
while(($s=$n-accept())){
print $s;
close $s;
}
require 'IO/Socket/INET';
$n = IO::Socket::INET.new({ :LocalPort = 20010, :Listen = 5 });
$n.listen();
while ($s=$n.accept())
print $s.gets;
$s.close;
end
Again, not much difference. end to delimit a block is probably the biggest
visual difference. : to qualify barewords as symbols, but hey, that seems like
a positive change to me. Page after page after page of A12, and still this
code looks the same. I'd say that's a win!
But, you know, somehow I suspect exactly the same arguments will magically
not apply to other languages, right?
But really... which would you prefer?!
That wasn't the question. Of course I prefer Perl 6. I prefer it because it
isn't Perl, though, not because it is!
--
dhd even though I know what a 'one time pad' is, it still sounds like
a feminine hygiene product.
Completely OT question about a Larry quote
I apologise for asking this here, but I can't think of anywhere better for it, and I have a feeling what I'm looking for was in a Perl 6-related talk, so... I remember reading a transcript of a talk Larry gave sometime which mentioned a conversation between Heidi Wall and Damian Conway, in which Heidi said something like But what is the future apart from a succession of tomorrows? or some such. I'd really like to get this quote right, but web searches are proving fruitless. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about? -- I will make no bargains with terrorist hardware. -- Peter da Silva
Re: Completely OT question about a Larry quote
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes: I remember reading a transcript of a talk Larry gave sometime which mentioned a conversation between Heidi Wall and Damian Conway, in which Heidi said something like But what is the future apart from a succession of tomorrows? Ziggy and Kurt both found this for me; thanks to both. Also, I confused Damian with ESR; apologies to both. -- Resist the urge to start typing; thinking is a worthwhile alternative. -- Kernighan and Pike
Re: Compatibility with perl 5
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax. And POSIX be damned! -- A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Agent J, Men in Black
Re: A12: Typed undef
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: A12 which doesn't quite work, because $spot is undefined. What probably happens is that the my cheats and puts a version of undef in there that knows it should dispatch to the Dog class if you call .self:new() on it. Anyway, we'll make it work one way or another, so that it becomes the equivalent of: /A12 I want to point out this is a pretty good idea overall, not as just some magic behavior. It would make some of the current p6i nargery a bit simpler, too. -- In this talk, I would like to speculate a little, on ... the development of intelligent life. I shall take this to include the human race, even though much of its behaviour throughout history has been pretty stupid... - Stephen Hawking
Re: backticks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark J. Reed) writes:
The biggest use of modulus is in implementing hashes
Rather, one of the biggest uses. I don't have documentation to support
the claim that it is the biggest, and there are certainly others -
date arithmetic, astronomy etc.
I'll bet you the actual most *common* use of modulus is:
until ( my ($percent_done=done()) == 100 ) {
do_work();
print $percent_done,\n unless $percent_done % 10;
}
--
A word to the wise: a credentials dicksize war is usually a bad idea on the
net.
(David Parsons in c.o.l.development.system, about coding in C.)
Re: backticks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
$ find . -name \*.pl | wc -l
330
$ find . -name \*.pl -exec grep -hlE 'qx|`|`|readpipe' {} \; | wc -l
123
`` gets used an awful lot
But that's in Perl 5, which is a glue language.
--
Though a program be but three lines long,
someday it will have to be maintained.
-- The Tao of Programming
Re: Q: Can colons control backtracking in logical expressions?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
if (specific() ?? detail1() detail2() :: general()) {...}
For some value of correct I suppose. Using ??:: within an if/else context
makes my skin crawl, stylistically. :-(
Ah, then use if!
if (if(specific()) { detail() } else { general() }) {
...
} else {
...
}
--
Complete the following sentence: People *ought* to weigh bricks, cats
and cinnamon in the same units because... - Ian Johnston
Re: Default program
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: Since the emacs codebase is already ported to many platforms, it should be trivial to add this to the core perl distribution. Perhaps Simon would agree to lead this effort? I would laugh, but http://search.cpan.org/~jtobey/Emacs-EPL-0.7/ -- On our campus the UNIX system has proved to be not only an effective software tool, but an agent of technical and social change within the University. - John Lions (U. of NSW)
Re: New functions in the core (Was Re: Dereferencing Syntax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Gottman) writes: This function would be very useful in inner loops, so if it is possible to implement it more efficiently in the core than as a sub in a module I think we should do so. And, if it's possible to implement it more efficiently in the core than as a sub in a module that Parrot didn't live up to one of its design principles. -- yrlnry I think the real problem here is that he is a university CS professor and therefore knows very little about programming in the real world, in any languge.
Re: Outer product considered useful
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: Before this gets simonized, let me add that this seems genuinely useful: It provides a way of constructing a loop in a dimension that is not really accessible, except via recursion. Oh, it *is* useful, and it's extremely nice to know that something like this will be able to be done as a user-defined extension, outside the core, or even in the standard library, I don't mind, once the Perl 6 core itself gets designed and implemented. -- Be not anxious about what you have, but about what you are. -- Pope St. Gregory I
Re: Some questions about operators.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: I'm not sure that having quaternary logic in Perl 6 is necessarily a good idea. Why stop only at four states? Total about twelve possible states plus junctions, of which eight or nine would be 'useful', and only three would be knowingly used. Irony is wasted on perl6-language. -- A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
Re: Operators that keep going and going...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carissa) writes: Obviously the Perl6 community has accepted that it's possible to have variants on operators for things like vectorization. I'm wondering if there would be any desire, need or room for what I have so far thought of as persistent (or Energizer Bunny) operators. Given that this is possible in Perl 5 (see Mark-Jason Dominus' forthcoming book) I don't doubt it'll be easy to implement as a Perl 6 module with user-defined operators. -- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
Re: Mutating methods
Oh, it's got lots of Japanese in it, I'd better read it... :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
Some will argue that since English doesn't have a grammatical
postfix topicalizer like Japanese, we should stick with something
like more English-like:
$x = (.a + .b + .c given $foo)
I think I'm missing something here. We have given as a perfectly good
topicaliser. Now, I remember harping on a while ago about generalizing the
idea of some control structures returning values, such as $x = if $a { $b }
else { $c };
Now if we do generalise that, we get
$x = given $foo { .a + .b + .c };
which gives us the topic-in-front form, the given which is the standard way
of declaring the topic, and it's all nice.
my Dog $dog wa= .new;
Urgh. This reads like you're topicalising a $dog, assigning to it and
acting on it all at the same time. Too many particles!
my Dog $inu wa ga o new desu; # ? :)
So you could usefully say something like
$modthingie wa %= .modulus;
Hrm.
given($modthingie) %= .modulus;
might work, but it relies on a few pieces of underlying magic, none of which I
believe to be over-the-top in themselves but taken together may leave a bad
taste:
control structures return a value, as above
given takes an optional block, purely setting the topic if no block
the topic persists throughout a statement
if operator it is.
I don't think it's an operator so much as a function. It sets the
topic and, depending on how things turn out, returns either void or
the topic again.
--
teco /dev/audio
- Ignatios Souvatzis
Re: Whither Apocalypse 7?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes: Did I miss something? Was there ever an apocalyse 7? Yes, there was. It was tacked on the end of Apocalypse 6, and said essentially No longer in core. See Damian. -- DYSFUNCTION: The Only Consistent Feature of All of Your Dissatisfying Relationships is You. http://www.despair.com
Re: Exegesis 7: Page Length
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes: Also, not strictly to do with formats but raised by the above, how is infinity written in Perl 6? â -- Complete the following sentence: People *ought* to weigh bricks, cats and cinnamon in the same units because... - Ian Johnston
Re: Exegesis 7: Page Length
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes: Also, not strictly to do with formats but raised by the above, how is infinity written in Perl 6? â ? -- dhd even though I know what a 'one time pad' is, it still sounds like a feminine hygiene product.
Re: Exegesis 7: Some other tyops
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: Thanks for those. We'll leave them out overnight and see if the elves will make them disappear from the various on-line versions. ;-) It may take a *couple* of nights, but the elves will be at work. -- Gods, you know your house is full of goths when the dancing really gets started with Morrissey. - Matt McCleod
Re: Perl 6 timeline?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: It's the coherence that I can't delegate, and if I tried to, we would certainly end up with Second System Syndrome Done Wrong, instead of Done Right. You know, it's statements like this that make it hard for even me to be curmudgeonly. E7 is coming out within a week or so. s/week/day/ Nearly all this stuff is already in there. Let's also remember that Perl 6 allows us to write a lot more of Perl 6 in Perl, and we don't need to specify the whole of CP6AN quite yet. If people want crazy data types, that's cool, but they don't need to be ready the day perl-6.0.0.tar.gz ships. (ch 29) Doubtless a great deal of the remaining design work is here. I still think most of this is library stuff too. And I18N will certainly be an I11l effort. I think Parrot has pretty much ignored the issue till now because all the Parrot Mongers speak English, and since everyone else retrofits I18N, why not us too? :-) Aieee. -- Though spring is here, to me it's still September, That September, in the rain - Dinah Washington, The USENET Anthem.
Re: Perl 6 timeline?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bennett Todd) writes: 2004-02-26T14:26:47 Larry Wall: Well now, I remember Perl 0, sonny. Does that still exist anywhere? If nowhere else, Larry's got a copy IN HIS HEAD. :) -- I have heard that the universe does not support atomic operations (although I've not seen the code.) If this is true, perhaps we should report the bug to the manufacturer. - Mark-Jason Dominus
Re: The Sort Problem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Crane) writes: One option might be an 'rsort' function, but I think that's somewhat lacking in the taste department. Agreed. Another might be as simple as @unsorted == sort == reverse == @sorted; @sorted == sort == @unsorted, no? ;) @unsorted == sort rinfix:cmp == @sorted; That is, rinfix: (or some other name) is like infix:, but gives you a function that reverses its arguments before actually running the operator. Perhaps it could even be implemented as a macro. I like this; it reminds me of the games you have to play with determining what do to with binary operators whose operands are overloaded in different classes. -- Do not go gentle into that good night/Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Re: This week's summary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Scott) writes: On 10 Feb 2004, at 14:09, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote: I wonder how long it'll be before someone reimplements them in in PIR... or Perl6 perchance. Well, Perl6::Rules should be coming out soon, so that should help. -- The problem with big-fish-little-pond situations is that you have to put up with all these fscking minnows everywhere. -- Rich Lafferty
Re: Semantics of vector operations
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Wardley) writes: Sure, make Perl Unicode compliant, right down to variable and operator names. But don't make people spend an afternoon messing around with mutt, vim, emacs and all the other tools they use, just so that they can read, write, email and print Perl programs correctly. To be honest, I don't think that'll be a problem, but only because by the time Perl 6 is widely deployed, people will have got themselves sorted out as far as Unicode's concerned. I suspect similar things were said when C decided to use 7 bit characters. That doesn't mean I think Unicode operators are a good idea, of course. -- When in doubt, print 'em out. -- Karl's Programming Proverb 0x7
Re: Archive tarball?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael.Firestone) writes: As there is no search engine at this moment groups.google.com might work for you. -- Wouldn't you love to fill out that report? Company asset #423423 was lost while fighting the forces of evil. -- Chris Adams in the scary.devil.monastery
Re: but true
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
is classof($x)
Ouch. $x's class isn't a property or trait of it?
class AnonClass is classof($x) does FooBar { }.bless($x, foobar = bar)
I don't understand what the bit at the end is doing. This is calling .bless
on the overriden method? And I'm not sure I follow the 'foobar = bar'.
I think I'm happier with that. $rubyometer += 0.3 or so. :-)
Except it loses about 5 points for that classof thing. ;)
--
As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know its true name.
-- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie
Re: Vocabulary
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: Well, just for clarification; in my anecdotal case (server-side web applications), the speed I actually need is as much as I can get, and all the time. Every N cycles I save represents an increase in peak traffic capabilities per server, which is, from a marketing perspective, essential. The desire to optimize the hell out of Perl 6 is a good one, but surely you optimize when there is a problem, not when before. Is there a problem with the speed you're getting from Perl 6 at the moment? -- evilPetey I often think I'd get better throughput yelling at the modem.
Re: OP [was: Re: Properties] [OT]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hodges) writes: I am not seeing unicode. Don't worry because, and I honestly don't mean this disparagingly - by the time Perl 6 is ready for prime-time, you will. Larry got this one right. -- Jesus ate my mouse or some similar banality. -- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-06
Re: Properties
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: P.S. I think we deserve a $rubyometer-- for bypassing mixins. I think you deserve loud and wild applause for an object model I want to use Right Now Dammit. -- Overall there is a smell of fried onions. (fnord)
Re: 'Core' Language Philosophy [was: Re: 'catch' statement modifier]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: I think we also need to be skeptical of the false economy of putting such sugar into CP6AN, if a sizable portion of the community is going to download it anyway. The standard Perl library will be almost entirely removed. The point of this is to force ISPs to believe that Perl is essentially useless on its own, and hence they will need to install additional modlues. Pragmatic modules will have more freedom to warp Perl's syntax and semantics, and will also provide real optimization hints. Larry suggested that the standard module library could be downloaded basically on demand; there will be a few modules which support basic built-in functionality and their documentation. -- Ermine? NO thanks. I take MINE black. - Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
Re: [perl] RE: s/// in string context should return the string
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes: Sigh. There's no =~ operator in Perl 6. How should we go about bringing A3 up to match current reality? It is, after all, over two years old now. -- End July 2001 - Alpha release for demonstration at TPC
Re: [perl] RE: s/// in string context should return the string
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes: We talked about this today. Our current thought is to retroactively write the Synopses and keep those up-to-date (with notes in the outdated parts of the A's and E's pointing to the relevant section of the S's). To be honest, I don't care how it's actually done, I just want to avoid having Larry pop up and say Sheesh, didn't you know X?, where X is something we've never heard of before and contradicts many things he's said publically in the past. -- blech lathos: nothing can make up for the middle class dinner party couple sex ARSE of Sade
Re: Control flow variables
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
I was reading the most recent article on perl.com, and a code segment
reminded me of something I see rather often in code that I don't like.
The code in question got me thinking too; I wanted to find a cleaner
way to write it, but didn't see one.
So, in Perl's postmodern tradition, I think we should steal that idea.
I agree, but (as usual) would like to consider whether there's a way
to solve a general problem rather than solving a specific problem by
throwing additional syntax at it. (which sadly seems to be fast becoming
the Perl 6 way)
Given that we've introduced the concept of if having a return status:
my $result = if ($a) { $a } else { $b };
Then why not extend this concept and have a return status from other
control structures?
for 0..6 - $t {
last if abs(@new[$t] - @new[$t+1]) 3;
} or push @moves: [$i, $j];
Of course, these things have consequences; I'm not sure whether we really
want people saying
push @moves:[$i, $j] unless last if abs(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])3 for 0..6;
--
The course of true anything never does run smooth.
-- Samuel Butler
Re: Control flow variables
Luke Palmer:
Well... it is and isn't. At first sight, it makes the language look
huge, the parser complex, a lot of syntax to master, etc. It also seems
to me that there is little discrimination when adding new syntax.
Correct.
But I've come to look at it another way. Perl 6 is doing something
(many things, really) that no other language has done before: making it
very easy to add new syntax to the language.
Well, that's hardly a new concept for a programming language.
So modules that introduce new concepts into the language can add new
syntax for them without working with (ugh) a source filter. And some of
these new syntaxes in the core language will actually be in standard
modules, if they're not commonly used. Just like traits.
This is good. This is what I like to hear. This is why the answer to
all these stupid syntax questions should be Look, if you need it, just put it
in a module when we're done. But can we please get on with getting Perl 6
designed and out the door, now?
But it isn't, and I don't know why it isn't, and so we end up spending loads
of time discussing things that can be punted out to modules. Designing Perl 6
is hard enough; let's not try to fill CP6AN at the same time.
I'll also point out that FINISH isn't really extra syntax, just extra
vocabulary.
It's extra special cases, which come to the same thing.
my $result = if ($a) { $a } else { $b };
Ack! We have? It does make sense if we want to be able to implement
Cif as a regular sub... I guess. Yuck.
Yep, we did. Of course, the nice thing about it is that it allows
do_thing() if if ($a) { $b } else { $c };
That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-)
Bah, should be able to!
But a close relative would be possible:
push @moves: [$i, $j] unless for 0..6 { last if abs(@[EMAIL PROTECTED]) 3 }
Yeah, how about no. :-)
That's the thing, see. By saying no, we're saying control structures like
'if' will be able to return a value, but control structures not like 'if'
won't, and that means we need to remove at least three words from 'When syntax
or semantics change, it will always be a change for the better: for greater
consistency, for more intuitability, for extra Do-What-I-Meanness.'... ;)
--
Resist the urge to start typing; thinking is a worthwhile alternative.
-- Kernighan and Pike
Re: Control flow variables
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: Luke Palmer: That's illegal anyway. Can't chain statement modifiers :-) Will be able to. I thought as much; Perl 6 will only be finally finished when the biotech is sufficiently advanced to massively clone Larry... -- quidity Sometimes it's better not to pedant.
Re: Control flow variables
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned being able to do:
cleanup .= { push @moves: [$i, $j]; }
This reminds me of something I thought the other day might be useful:
$cleanup = bless {}, class {
method DESTROY { ... }
};
Of course, it probably wouldn't work in this context because you couldn't
guarantee that the destructor will be called at the point of loop exit, but I
like the anonymous class syntax anyway.
--
I've looked at the listing, and it's right!
-- Joel Halpern
Re: How to get environment variables?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Shitov) writes:
Is it possible to get environment variables from perl6 programme? It
failes when I try to use perl5 hash %ENV. Thanks.
Are you sure you're using the Perl 6 hash syntax? (%ENV{FOO} rather than Perl
5-style $ENV{FOO})
What version of Perl 6 are you using?
--
The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the power of
assembly language with the flexibility of assembly language.
Re: The Block Returns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
Frankly, I think I'd rather see:
Some nits:
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/{ Perl6.line* }/) {
Probably just
macro atexit($code) is parsed(/Perl6.block/) {
$block .= $code;
$block _= $code;
Dunno what .= would mean now . is method call. I'm sure someone will make it
mean something. :)
eval($block) if defined $block;
I prefer $block.compile.run to eval()
--
The entirely inscrutable thing to me, looking back on myself, is my total want
of all reason, will or design in the business; I had neither the resolution to
win Adèle, the courage to do without her, the sense to consider what was at
last to come of it all, or the grace to think how disagreeable I was making
myself at the time to everybody about me. - John Ruskin.
Re: Pondering parameterized operators
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: [$lhs, $rhs]æ\220\215.æ\235\237compile; What's that in old money? -- As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach him to grep for fish, he'll leave you alone all weekend. If you encourage him to beg for fish, pretty soon c.l.p.misc will smell like a three-week-dead trout. -- Tom Phoenix, c.l.p.misc.
Re: Parrot 0.0.11 Doubloon Released!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: I know what BASIC means, but what the hell is a PCM and what is a IMCC supposed to mean? And what is a CPS? The FAQ doesn't cover this... PMC is Pulse Code Modulation That's PCM. PMC is Phillip Martin Cozens, my father. -- Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing? -- Job 16:3
Re: Next Apocalypse
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piers Cawley) writes: Great. But will it also be possible to add methods (or modify them) to an existing class at runtime? You only have to look at a Smalltalk image to see packages adding helper methods to Object and the like People get upset when CPAN authors add stuff to UNIVERSAL:: :) -- Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin. -- John Von Neumann
Re: Apocalypses and Exegesis...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alberto Manuel Brandão simões) writes: The question is simple, and Dan can have the same problem (or him or Larry). I am thinking on a Perl 6 book in portuguese (maybe only a tutorial... but who knows). But that means I must write something which will work :-) Just a hint: don't try writing it and revising it as the language changes. I wrote a Perl 6 chapter for a book in December and it is now almost unusable due to the pace of change. -- Dames lie about anything - just for practice. -Raymond Chandler
Re: Perl 6's for() signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: The last thought on the problem that Larry's shared with me was that there may need to be a special case for allowing a single block parameter after the slurpy And the Rubyometer creeps up another few notches... (Gosh, you'd almost think that Matz had already thought through some of these issues, wouldn't you? ;) -- Will your long-winded speeches never end? What ails you that you keep on arguing? -- Job 16:3
Re: Perl6 Daydreams (on topic but frivolous)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes: My only dream is that by this time next year we have a fully- functional-people-can-use-it-in-production Perl6. It doesn't even have to be 100% complete; I think just 85% would be enough if it were the right 85%. I've been using an 85%-complete Perl 6 in production for the past five years. It's called Perl 5. ;) -- Skud's Law: The surreality of the universe tends toward a maximum.
Re: printf-like formatting in interpolated strings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin Steiner) writes: Well, it's a bike shed. Perhaps best not to have people expend lots of energy painting bike sheds until the nuclear reactor's anywhere near functional, though. I think the whole thing can be done, in whatever style people would like, using whatever natty syntax, by means of $( ), overloaded string constants, or, heaven forbid, a purpose-built grammar rule override for double-quoted strings. When we have any one of those things. And I would go so far as to say that since we have proposals for three different ways to allow people to do it precisely how they like, we don't need to discuss a way to do it in the core language. At least, certainly not yet. But then I'm one of those freaks who likes the idea of keeping core Perl 6 generic, extensible, clean and small, and letting all the clever stuff go into extensions, a heretical position which is way out of favour with the more influential listfolk, so feel free to ignore my opinion. But it is a bike shed people use all the time. Agreed, I suppose. % grep printf cvs/modules/**/*pm | wc -l 15 % grep -v printf cvs/modules/**/*pm | wc -l 15360 Well, 0.1% agreed, anyway. -- Putting a square peg into a round hole can be worthwhile if you don't mind a few shavings. -- Larry Wall
Re: printf-like formatting in interpolated strings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin Steiner) writes: Description: This list is for discussing user-visible changes to the language. It's somewhat unnerving to post on topic and (hopefully) politely and I think your post was spot on; the only problem I had with it is that I felt it was addressing a problem at too low a level. This could be because I'm a grouchy old-timer, and I carry over a Perl 5 design principle that says that changes should be made in as general a way as possible. I *want* to solve the sprintf-interpolation problem, but I think it's possible to get too bound-up in syntax and miss more generic ways of solving the same problem. A quick review of the early archives of this list might serve to exhibit the phenomenon. :) I also think it's possible to get bogged down in low-level details right now, when the same energy could be used to, say, hash out the MMD big issue that Ziggy mentioned earlier today. I think all that needs to happen at this stage is that we realise that a nicer way to do formatting in strings would be good, we look at whether or not it can be done (decently, for *someone*'s definition of decent ;) with the tools we already have proposed, and if not, flag it as something to come back to when we need to hammer out the details. get a cold (less on topic) reply from someone with warm feelings. On the other hand the sharks might miss the occasional bite... Unfortunately, it cuts both ways; this is the second post in a row you've ended with an unnecessary barb. I know I'm no saint as far as that's concerned, but I also know it doesn't necessary endear people to your point of view. -- Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
Re: printf-like formatting in interpolated strings
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: replacing, or merging, formats with emit-rules seems like an interesting project. I dunno, I think it fires my change for the sake of change alarm bells. So far we're already throwing away thirty years of^W^W^W^W^W^Wrationalising one Unix little language; can't we leave another one alone, please - at least until 6.1? We don't have to fix the entire world immediately; fixing the majority of it is already taking quite long enough. :( -- Mohandas K. Gandhi often changed his mind publicly. An aide once asked him how he could so freely contradict this week what he had said just last week. The great man replied that it was because this week he knew better.
Re: Multimethod dispatch?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: It will still have a lot of power in text processing, and still be a powerful quicky language, but that's no longer its primary focus -- not to say that highly structured programming is. So, uh, what is? And you can still do it the Perl 5 way in Perl 6. We're just taking common idioms Your common and my common appear to differ! -- Irrigation of the land with seawater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'. -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion
Re: How shall threads work in P6?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes: Well, if you optimize for the most common case, throw out threads altogether. Well, I almost would agree with you since cooperative threading can almost entirely be done in perl code, since they are built in continuations. I actually gave an example of that earlier. You thoroughly missed my point, but then I didn't make it very clearly: the Huffman-encoding argument works well for language design, but doesn't apply too well for implementation design. We'll not bother implementing an exponentiation operator since exponentiation is only used very rarely in Perl programs and we can get around it with some shifts, multiplication and a loop if we need it. -- They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan
Re: == vs. eq
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes: No! Please! PHP tried this and gets it very wrong indeed Don't be too hasty on the basis of one failure - Ruby tried it and got it very right indeed. In fact, Ruby has three types of equality/match operator, all slightly different, but most people only need two. Also, don't forget to distinguish between typed variables and typed values. I was under the impression that Perl 6 is going to have both. -- Last week I forgot how to ride a bicycle. -- Steven Wright
Re: == vs. eq
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes: I don't know what the official (this week) policy is, but I think it's a bad idea for references to auto-dereference. keys %$hash_r would bore me compared to keys $hash_r, since 'keys' can easily know that it wants a hash; in fact, I thought that autodereferencing of references in this way was something that was guaranteed from early on. I seem to remember hacking it into the Perl 6 emulator, as was.. -- The bad reputation UNIX has gotten is totally undeserved, laid on by people who don't understand, who have not gotten in there and tried anything. -- Jim Joyce, former computer science lecturer at the University of California
Re: How shall threads work in P6?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes: I think if we apply the Huffman principle here by optimizing for the most common case, cooperative threading wins from preemptive threading. Well, if you optimize for the most common case, throw out threads altogether. -- The bad reputation UNIX has gotten is totally undeserved, laid on by people who don't understand, who have not gotten in there and tried anything. -- Jim Joyce, former computer science lecturer at the University of California
Re: P6ML?
To what extent should the (presumably library-side) ability to parse a given markup language influence Perl 6's core language design? (which is what this list is nominally about.) I think this ought to approximate to none at all. -- I'd rather have ham in my sandwich than cheese, but complaining won't do any good.
Re: Rules and hypotheticals: continuations versus callbacks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: you aren't allowed to selectively redefine rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules. This is precisely what a macro does. -- How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are for. I only coded it. (Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)
Re: Rules and hypotheticals: continuations versus callbacks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: At 5:47 PM + 3/19/03, Simon Cozens wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: you aren't allowed to selectively redefine rules in the middle of a regex that uses those rules. This is precisely what a macro does. Not once execution starts, no. Compilation's just execution of a regex, albeit the Perl6::Grammar::program regex, and that regex will need to be modified while it's in operation in order to pick up macro is parsed definitions and apply them to the rest of what it's parsing. -- * DrForr digs around for a fresh IV drip bag and proceeds to hook up. dngor Coffee port. DrForr Firewalled, like everything else around here.
Re: Rules and hypotheticals: continuations versus callbacks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: Compilation's just execution of a regex, albeit the Perl6::Grammar::program regex, and that regex will need to be modified while it's in operation in order to pick up macro is parsed definitions and apply them to the rest of what it's parsing. Ah, damn, I wasn't thinking far enough out. This, you see, is precisely why some of us started work last year on a regular expression engine which could handle having its expressions rewritten during the match... ;) -- Last week I forgot how to ride a bicycle. -- Steven Wright
Re: Rules and hypotheticals: continuations versus callbacks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthijs Van Duin) writes: OK, I suppose that works although that still means you're moving the complexity from the perl implementation to its usage: in this case, the perl 6 parser which is written in perl 6 No, I don't believe that's what's happening. My concern is that at some point, there *will* need to be a bootstrapped parser which is written in some low level language, outputting Parrot bytecode, and it *will* need to be able to reconfigure itself mid-match. I think. I can't remember why I'm so convinced of this, and I'm too tired to think it through with examples right now, and I might be wrong anyway, but at least I can be ready with a solution if it proves necessary. :) -- There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. ... The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and pertubations of love is Hell. -CS Lewis The Four Loves
Re: XML is Too Hard for Programmers = Tim Bray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Morin) writes: I have commented before on the face that Perl doesn't have Power Tools (read, idioms) that are well suited for handling XML. Turns out that Tim Bray agrees. Tim Bray also says he gives up and uses regexes as a quick and dirty work around. So maybe these power tools you keep touting aren't necessary after all. -- A witty saying means nothing. -Voltaire
Re: A6: Quick questions as I work on Perl6::Parameters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: Just wait till you see P::RD's successor: Perl6::Rules ;-) I was waiting for its successor, Parse::FastDescent. ;) Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I've forgotten where it lives or their real name. -- Did you know that 1 barn yard atmosphere = 9.2e-17 erg?
Re: A6: Quick questions as I work on Perl6::Parameters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes: Seriously, someone on IRC the other day was claiming that they already had a P6RE-in-P5 implementation, and did show me some code, but I've forgotten where it lives or their real name. ttp://www.liacs.nl/~mavduin/P6P5_0.00_01.tar.gz -- IBM: It may be slow, but it's hard to use.
Re: A6: Quick questions as I work on Perl6::Parameters
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: Thanks for the pointer. I'm taking a very different approach, but it will certainly be useful to have two independent and parallel implementations to run against each other. Well, I'll try and dig out the one I wrote at STL too, if regexes haven't changed too much since then. :) -- On a normal ascii line, the only safe condition to detect is a 'BREAK' - everything else having been assigned functions by Gnu EMACS. (By Tarl Neustaedter)
Re: AW: P6FC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aldo Calpini) writes: any (possibly meaningful) feedback will be very appreciated. I think Type should be called Value, and that arrays should possibly be a mixin of lists, but apart from that it looks fine. Oh, and you missed out Grammars; and I don't know if macros are actually objects and can be tossed around, or if they're just part of the compilation process. -- Sauvin Remember: amateurs built the Ark; _professionals_ built the Titantic.
Re: Statement modifiers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
we have a definitive
^^
Remember that this is Perl 6. You keep using that word, etc.
--
void russian_roulette(void) { char *target; strcpy(target, bullet); }
Pre-defined properties/traits/etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes: Can someone please compile a list of all the is foo properties that have been suggested/accepted as being pre-defined by the language? I can't keep track of them all. Well, here's a start. Here are the ones I've found in the Exegeses and Apocalypses. Things like 'is copy' and 'is given' (and probably a great many others) have only been mentioned on the list, and I'm not grepping through all the list mail. :) A note: It is *impossible* to tell whether these are properties or methods, built-ins or user-defined. This has never been stated anywhere, with the exception of constant and dim, which Damian says (in E2) are built-in properties. Maybe those which are capitalized are user-defined. Maybe that's not a good enough rule. We Just Don't Know. Maybe an explicit rule would be nice. And this may all have changed anyway. But here they are, followed by which Apo/Exe they were mentioned in, and how many times, using the troll's numbering system. (1, 2, many, lots) bigint (A2: 1) constant (A2: many, E2: many, E4: 2) const (E3:2) rw (A2: 2, A4: 1, E2: many, E4:1) true (A2: 1, E4:1) false (A2: 2) dim (A2: many, E2: many) shared (A2:1) locked (A2:1) optimize (A2:2) same (A2:1) private (A2:1, E4:many) computed (A2:1) Purpose (A2:1) lazy (A2:1) Initialised (A2:2) weak (A2:1) Note (A2:1) dis (A2:1) Meaning (A2:1) interface (A2:1, E4:2) inherits (A2:1) Exception (A4:1,E4:many) post (A4: many) loud (A4: many) keymatch (A5:1) valuematch (A5:2) back (A5:2) chomped (E2: many, E4:1) Found (E2:many) Colour (E2:1) prompts (E2: many) Verified (E2:1) Allison, any more to add? -- #define struct union /* Great space saver */
Re: Pre-defined properties/traits/etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes: Oh well, it was only two letters. There wasn't anything about approximate matching in A5, was there? I'm not sure what you mean, could you give an example? This was a [MZ]u[nr]ich joke, I think. -- Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work, work, work till we die. -- C.S. Lewis
Re: Arrays, lists, referencing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allison Randal) writes: In the design meetings early this month we added Cis copy for true pass-by-value. Can someone please compile a list of all the is foo properties that have been suggested/accepted as being pre-defined by the language? I can't keep track of them all. -- So what if I have a fertile brain? Fertilizer happens. -- Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A proposal for separable verbs. (Was: Re: A proposal on if and else)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes: Let's support separable verbs. That (http://dev.perl.org/perl6/rfc/309.html) is a really good idea. -- Writing software is more fun than working.
Re: L2R/R2L syntax
[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 same thing with a sub with a prototype of (block, *@list). Well, I'll go record and say I think it's Bloody Silly. It's over-cutesy, adding syntax for the sake of syntax, doesn't do anything for the readability of code, and doesn't really actually gain very much anyway. But even so I dare say it'll go in because Damian likes it. -- King's Law of Clues : Common sense is inversely proportional to the academic intelligence of the person concerned.
Re: L2R/R2L syntax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes: # could do the same thing with a sub with a prototype of # (block, *@list). Great. That could mean it won't work right for MyCustomArrayLikeThing. Can you explain what you mean by this, because it's not apparent to me that your statement is in any way correct. There are a lot of confusing syntaxes in Perl--if you don't believe me, go look at the Obfuscation section on PerlMonks. :^) That doesn't mean we try to get rid of them Of course not; it means we need to add more! -- MISTAKES: It Could Be That The Purpose Of Your Life Is Only To Serve As A Warning To Others http://www.despair.com
Re: L2R/R2L syntax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes: # # could do the same thing with a sub with a prototype of # # (block, *@list). OK. Let's say I'm implementing HugeOnDiskArray, and instead of slurping the array in and grepping over it, I want to grab the elements one at a time, run them through the grep function's coderef, and stick them in another HugeOnDiskArray. So if you want a lazy grep, you use (block, $list) rather than (block, *@list). Still no additional syntax required. -- Nuclear war can ruin your whole compile. -- Karl Lehenbauer
Re: L2R/R2L syntax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson) writes: I trust that we are all sufficiently grown up and devoid of marketing hype that we can judge suggestions on their own merit. Do you need pointing to the archives at this point? -- DYSFUNCTION: The Only Consistent Feature of All of Your Dissatisfying Relationships is You. http://www.despair.com
Re: L2R/R2L syntax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: ...the absence of the commas is what's special. If they were normal functions/subroutines/methods/whatever, you would need a comma after the first argument This is plainly untrue. See the perlsub documentation, which talks about creating your own syntax with the prototype. You can do all this in Perl 5, and it saddens me that some of the people redesigning Perl don't know what Perl can do. -- Look, there are only a few billion people in the world, right? And they can only possibly know a few thousand bits of information not known by someone else, right? So the human race will never have a real need for more than a few terabits of storage, except possibly as cache. - Geraint Jones
Re: L2R/R2L syntax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: No. I said it was _special_, not _impossible_. You said in Perl 5 it was X instead of Y. But it turned out to be Y after all. -- He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable.
Re: Civility, please. (was Re: L2R/R2L syntax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: I don't think any aspect of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5 behaviors, Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't name-calling; this is a plea for Perl 6 not to become a language designed by a committee of ignorant amateurs. The Lord knows that languages designed by committees of professional standards-writers are pretty bad, and we're still a long way from that. -- A Law of Computer Programming: Make it possible for programmers to write in English and you will find that programmers cannot write in English.
Re: L2R/R2L syntax [x-adr][x-bayes]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that, to many people, Perl 6 is far less important than mod_Perl, or DBI, or HTML::Mason, or POE, or PDL, or Inline, or SpamAssassin, or XML::Parser, or YAML, or the Slashcode, or any of a hundred other projects on which their job depends on a daily basis. Amen to that. -- DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.
Re: L2R/R2L syntax [x-adr][x-bayes]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson) writes: That may well be true, but it seems to me that if people's jobs depend on those projects then there is (or could be or should be) a source of funding available, should such be required, namely the companies who are (hopefully) making a profit on the backs of those projects. And to what organisation do you suggest such companies make a donation in order to make best use of that funding? -- Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. -- Howard Aiken
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes: Argh, I just realized the original was probably sarcastic too. Now I look like an idiot. Well, moreso than before. There has been more than a touch of sarcasm about nearly every post in this thread in the last two days. -- So i get the chance to reread my postings to asr at times, with a corresponding conservation of the almighty leviam00se, Kai Henningsen. -- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-06
Re: Array Questions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes: Great -- then I have only one more question, I think. In the words of a certain cartoon character, what's *this* button do? my $b is $a; I think at this stage it's probably worth reminding everyone that not every string of characters *needs* to be syntactically valid Perl 6, despite our best efforts. -- Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer. --Bruce Graham
Re: L2R/R2L syntax (was Re: Everything is an object.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: Ah, that's a different question. Having Unicode synonyms may well be considered reasonable thing Sounds like the good old days of trigraphs. -- A witty saying means nothing. -Voltaire
Re: Pike 7.4
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes: We can't use « or ». Not only are they impossible to type on some editors, but they're different in CP437 (the DOS charset), Latin1, and UTF8. We've done this. -- I've looked at the listing, and it's right! -- Joel Halpern
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes: There are in fact *two* types associated with any Perl variable: Is there any chance we could make this a little more confusing? One or two people still appear to be following you. -- You advocate a lot of egg sucking but you're not very forthcoming with the eggs. - Phil Winterbottom (to ken)
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Dax) writes: Is that clear enough, or should I say it a little slower? Clear as it's going to get, I fear. -- He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable.
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: The short answer, I suppose, is that we're not recreating Smalltalk--at least some small nod is being made towards Practicality. I really don't follow your argument here. What's impractical about being able to inherit from Arrays? -- Familiarity breeds facility. -- Megahal (trained on asr), 1998-11-06
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: Nothing, the impractical part is making arrays objects--they aren't, Hang on. We're saying that they should be. You're saying that they're not. You haven't produced any reasons *WHY* they're not. Why *aren't* they arrays? It's perfectly practical; most other scripting languages do it. If Parrot wants to support them, Parrot will have to do it too. So what's the big problem? and we're not particularly going to go out of our way to make them so. Your argument seems to be: We can't make arrays objects because they aren't objects and we aren't making them objects. I don't find that a very strong argument; at best, it's a case of imposing your particular favourite implementation method on the language design, and at worst it's completely circular. -- In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current. -- Thomas Jefferson
Re: Variable Types Vs Value Types
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) writes: they arrays? Bluh, I mean objects. Getting carried away; this is something I do actually care about, and I'll be quite unhappy if we screw it up. -- The Blit is a nice terminal, but it runs emacs.
