I just want to say it seems appropriate that this discussion of how
Perl can look like Morse Code is happening in the thread I first started,
since I was active in ham radio from 1970-95 (mostly CW, or "Morse Code"
to you non-hams).
And consider it a blessing that Perl can look like Morse Code, n
Larry Wall wrote:
> Now we just need to make "... ___ ..." mean something exceptional.
Ref: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg02873.html )
--
John Porter
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:39:01AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Now we just need to make "... ___ ..." mean something exceptional.
___ ... ___ is valid. :)
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalite
> : Hey, that would make "_ _ __" legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail!
>
> Now we just need to make "... ___ ..." mean something exceptional.
Just download the Bleach.pm module from the CPAN.
It includes Morse.pm.
Damian
---cut---cut---cut---cut---
Simon Cozens writes:
: Hey, that would make "_ _ __" legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail!
Now we just need to make "... ___ ..." mean something exceptional.
: (I still prefer ~, but acknowledge that this is just bikeshed painting.)
Bikesheds need to be painted occasionally.
Larry
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:22:12PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Will there be confusion with the _ that means "the file statted by
> the last -X test?" I doubt it: file tests need to bind tighter than
> the concat op and the problem is over.
Hey, that would make "_ _ __" legal Perl code. Abiga
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> I'd rather it be "cc" or "_" (I didn't like the underscore at first,
> but it's grown on me a little)
Comparing ~ and _ to available editors markup marks, _ is closer
to the sideways () that an editor might use to indicate that two words
should be joined together.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:45:02AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> I think many of us are resigned to losing . for concatination; I know
> I can live with that. I just don't want to have this result in ~, ^,
> or any other C-style punctuation operator getting renamed.
That's my position. I'd rath
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> And I'm tired of hearing the argument that Perl programmers can't get
> used to a different operator for concatenation. I know better--after
> all, Perl is probably what got them used to . in the first place. If
> you can teach dogs t
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Now, it may be that all the "We should use ." people are just keeping
: quiet, or think it's obvious why this is a benefit, but I'm unconvinced.
: Again, I'm open-minded, but the only argument I've really heard is to
: make Perl more Java/Python-like. This doesn't sway me at
Graham Barr wrote:
> You don't get it.
>
> We are not looking for a single char to replace ->
>
> We WANT to use .
With complete respect here, I'm still not convinced this is true.
Specifically, what the value of "we" is. It hardly sounds like
everyone's united on this point. In fact, I've coun
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:35:24AM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
> Bart Lateur's response summarizes well what I've heard so far
> from responses both to the list and privately:
>
> (1) Yes, ~ *is* somewhat used in its current role as the bitwise
> negation (complement) operator.
>
> (2) No, t
Bart Lateur's response summarizes well what I've heard so far
from responses both to the list and privately:
(1) Yes, ~ *is* somewhat used in its current role as the bitwise
negation (complement) operator.
(2) No, that doesn't appear to overlap my proposal for its use
as a successor to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 10:15:14 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>For example, in
>
> -3.4
>
>and in
>
> 2-3.4
>
>the - sign is a *different* kind of operator. No conflict.
Well alright, in the first line, the "-" might be part of the number.
Replace "3.4" with a variable and it does hold:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:19:40 GMT, Fred Heutte wrote:
>Yes, I know ~ is the bitwise negation operator. Have you EVER used it?
Yes. A lot.
But there is no conflict. ~ is currently just an unary operator, while
your use would be as a binary operator (are those the correct terms?).
For example, in
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
> It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods)
> more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl
> at work here.
>
> So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for ->
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
> Yes, I know ~ is the bitwise negation operator. Have you EVER used it?
Today, in fact:
fcntl($fh, F_SETFL, $flags & ~O_NONBLOCK) or die "fcntl: $!";
- Damien
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
: It seems to me that ~ relates to forces (operators, functions and methods)
: more than to atoms (scalars), so to speak. It's the curve of binding Perl
: at work here.
:
: So why not leave . alone and have ~ substitute for ->
:
18 matches
Mail list logo