Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[James Mastros]

From: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)
> Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? Plus, it makes the
> pre-plus-concat that many desire impossible, since =~ is taken.
God, yes.  I constantly have problems with ~= vs. =~; this is only helped
by the fact that =~ is normaly a syntax error.  (It isn't when you use a 
qx//ed regex, which I don't do often.)

> In summary:
>1. I don't like ~ for concat 
>2. But if it does become concat, then we still shouldn't
>   change ~'s current unary meaning
I 100% agree.  It's shenanagnins like this that make perl
people look like fringe wackos.

I still fail to see why "." is such an advantage over ->.
The only real benifit I see is typing ease, and -> isn't that
hard to type.  That's what editor macros are for.

It's rather unfornate that we've run out of characters to use
for operators, but we've got to deal with it better then flipping
around operators willy-nilly.

-=- James Mastros

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Dan Sugalski]

At 05:17 AM 6/22/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
> > In summary:
> >
> >1. I don't like ~ for concat
> >
> >2. But if it does become concat, then we still
> > shouldn't
> >   change ~'s current unary meaning
> >
> >
> > Thanks for listening.
> >
> > -Nate
>
>I agree completely. However, this is no longer really a
>topic for -internals, it's really a purely language thing.

More importantly, it never really was a topic for -internals. Punctiation's 
a strictly cosmetic issue. :)

Dan

--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski  even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
  teddy bears get drunk

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Benjamin Stuhl]

> In summary:
> 
>1. I don't like ~ for concat 
> 
>2. But if it does become concat, then we still
> shouldn't
>   change ~'s current unary meaning
> 
> 
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> -Nate

I agree completely. However, this is no longer really a
topic for -internals, it's really a purely language thing. 

-- BKS


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

RE: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[David Grove]

> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
>
> For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> > > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
>
> Does anyone else see a problem with "$negated=~$scalar;" ? :)

Other than that we appear to be using rot13 against our operators, not
particularly.

p

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Me]

> > For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> So do I, actually... it's sort of growing on me.

Me too. (I think it (~ for concat, ^ for negation) is just fine.)

The "clash" with =~ is disappointing though.

Now if Larry had the cahones to change the =~ operator...

(I find the notion of a short infix word, like 'in', somewhat appealing.
But I understand how easy it is to see this as more radical than is
really called for.)

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Bart Lateur]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:49:21 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:

>> > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? 
>
>Does anyone else see a problem with "$negated=~$scalar;" ? :)

You forgot the space between the "=" and the "~". And yes, that is a bit
of a problem.

-- 
Bart.

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Russ Allbery]

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:

>> We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
>> of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
>> pointless.

> For what it's worth, I like it.

So do I, actually... it's sort of growing on me.

-- 
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Jarkko Hietaniemi]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:49:21PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
> 
> For what it's worth, I like it.
> 
> > > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? 
> 
> Does anyone else see a problem with "$negated=~$scalar;" ? :)

...and for three points, guess what $foo=~0 does in Perl 5?

-- 
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

Re: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Simon Cozens]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> pointless.

For what it's worth, I like it.

> > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? 

Does anyone else see a problem with "$negated=~$scalar;" ? :)

-- 
If they can put a man on the moon, why can't they put them all there?

~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)

[Nathan Wiger]

* Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/14/2001 15:16]:
>
> OK, I've been teasing people about this for weeks, and it's time to stop.
> This is the current state of the Perl 6 emulator; it applies most things
> that Damian talked about in his keynote yesterday, and most of the things
> I've picked up in perl6-language. It does:
> 
> $a ~ $b for concat
> ^ $afor negation

I just want to briefly register a formal complaint that I do not like
this, and I suspect I'm not the only one. I just think many have stopped
trying to fight it out of exhaustion.

I don't like ~ for binary concat. For one thing, it means that the
equivalent of .= is now:

   $a ~= $b

Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? Plus, it makes the
pre-plus-concat that many desire impossible, since =~ is taken.

Second, even if ~ *is* used for concat, then I *still* don't think that
~ should be changed from unary negation. There's no reason for it. Every
other major modern language I can think of uses ~ for unary negation. An
operator can change its meaning based on context, just consider <<.

In summary:

   1. I don't like ~ for concat 

   2. But if it does become concat, then we still shouldn't
  change ~'s current unary meaning


Thanks for listening.

-Nate