[Apologies for late reply, but it takes a long time to read this many
messages]
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
^[op] and «op»
have been most seriously proposed -- something that
keeps a bracketed syntax, but
Peter Haworth writes:
a ^[alpha_op] +3
You can parse this in two ways:
* array a, hyperop alpha_op, unary plus, literal 3
* array a, binary xor, call alpha_op and put result in arrayref,
binary plus, literal 3
I think this was already discusse dbefore .
^ - xor and ^[]
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: %a ^[op]= @b # hash v array
: @a ^[op]= %b # array v hash
What would those mean? Are you thinking only of hashes with numeric keys?
Larry
Larry Wall writes:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: %a ^[op]= @b # hash v array
: @a ^[op]= %b # array v hash
What would those mean? Are you thinking only of hashes with numeric keys?
Larry
no but hash can have property that tells how to turn its
Larry Wall writes:
sub postfix:! (num $x) { $x 2 ?? $x :: $x * ($x - 1) ! }
which could be fixed with the _:
sub postfix:! (num $x) { $x 2 ?? $x :: $x * ($x - 1) _! }
Weird, but it's all consistent with the distinction we're already
making on curlies, which gave a
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
Any of you OO guys know of a case where
$a = $a + $b; # A [+]= B; -- A = A [+] B;
and
$a += $b; # A [+=] B;
should be different?
They are different in the scalar [op] list case, as explained here:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: They are different in the scalar [op] list case, as explained here:
: http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg10961.html
:
: ($a = 0) [+=] b; # sum
: ($a = 1) [*=] b; # product
: ($a ='') [~=] b; # cat
That's almost
Larry wrote:
That's almost a reduce. Pity you have to include a variable.
But since rvalues are illegal on the left side of an assignment, we
*could* go as far as to say that
0 [+=] b; # sum
1 [*=] b; # product
'' [~=] b; # cat
dwim into reduce operators rather than being
--
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few
issues remain before the ops list can be completed.
1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
^[op] and +op;
have been most seriously proposed --
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
Neither $a nor $b nor $c.
What? Aren't you able to see this invisible neither operator just at
the front? ;-)
/L/e/k/t/u
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Again, I'm wondering if we're going about this wrong way -- perhaps we
need to go to more effort to save ^ as xor, and use something
different for hypers, like h+ or h[+] or `+ or ~+ or ~~+, etc?
OK, I'm calling Warnock's on
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:21 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the
operator
so nicely):
$count = a + b;
sums = a [+] b;
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Any ideas on what
{ $^a op $^b }
would become?
It would be unchanged. Placeholders have nothing to do with hyperoperators.
And never have had.
Damian
Uri Guttman wrote:
what is a string complement? bitwise? i take it the numeric is one's
complement.
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Integer complement treats the value as a int then bitwise complements every
bit.
DC
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 11:47 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
[i.e. this change doesn't make any difference]
Doh! You're right, of course. For some reason I was thinking a long
while back that it would be confusing to have
{ $^a op $^b }
if ^ went back to meaning xor. But there's the
Scott Duff wrote:
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C$val.eigenstates
or maybe just C$val.states. The method would work on non-superimposed
values as well, in which cases it would just return a list containing
the value
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:51:14AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
String complement treats the value as a string then bitwise complements every
bit of each character.
Is that the complement of the codepoint or the individual bytes?
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
--
Nothing ventured, nothing lost.
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square brackets (for their dual
array and indexing connotations, and because they highlight the operator
so nicely):
$count = a + b;
sums = a [+] b;
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've
Aaron Crane wrote:
Mmm, yummy. I do have a question though (and apologies if I've merely
missed the answer). We've got two productive operation-formation rules: one
saying add a final = to operate-and-assign, and the other saying wrap in
[] to vectorise. But no-one's said which order they
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:37:32 +
From: Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Damian Conway writes:
My personal favorite solution is to use square
Interesting point, especially if operator:+= can be overloaded.
@a [+=] @b;
implies iteratively invoking operator:+=, whereas
@a [+]= @b;
implies assigning the result of iteratively invoking operator:+
It only matters when they're different. :-|
And, of course, if they ARE different then
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
I'd strongly advise against that.
--
Ermine? NO thanks. I take MINE black.
- Henry Braun is Oxford Zippy
On 30 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
: (I'm thinking utf8 here).
:
: I'd strongly advise against that.
Actually, it works out rather well in practice, because the string
abstraction in Perl is that of a sequence of codepoints. But at
least in Perl 5,
At 1:20 AM + 10/30/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Mitchell) writes:
(I'm thinking utf8 here).
I'd strongly advise against that.
I'd agree. Thinking UTF-8 is generally a bad idea.
If you think anything, think fixed-size code points, since that's
what you're ultimately
Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
for x | y - $x is rw | $y {
$x += $y
}
This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
wondering why we were iterating with superpositions (Bitops
never entered my mind). Did the C; ever
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, David Whipp wrote:
: Luke Palmer [mailto:fibonaci;babylonia.flatirons.org] wrote:
:
:for x | y - $x is rw | $y {
:$x += $y
:}
:
: This superposition stuff is getting to me: I had a double-take,
: wondering why we were iterating with superpositions
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
Hell, we might as well throw in multiple dispatch.
Actually, I am really hoping we do.
Any of you OO guys know of a case where
$a = $a + $b; # A [+]= B; -- A = A [+] B;
and
$a += $b; # A [+=] B;
should be different?
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 12:57 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
.= .|= .\= = = - (depending on operants)
s/operants/operands/
Sorry bout that. Typing too fast.
MikeL
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Larry wrote:
:If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada
:route of specifying the radix explicitly:
: Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place of
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: :or
: :
: :given ( /home/temp/, $f )
: : - ( str $x , int $n ) {
: : $x ~ [one, two, ... , hundreed][$n]
: : };
: :
: :it seems that the last does not work because given take
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes:
I mislike \ for xor, primarily because it doesn't fit into the current
escape mystique of \.
Larry
Since xor is really low frequency, why not make xor mean xor?
$zero = $a xor $a;
$a xor= $b;
$b xor= $a xor= $b xor= $a; # Swap'em
@a ^xor= @b; # Is this right?
=Austin
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: If \ meant xor, and some of the
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:41:37AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes:
I mislike \ for xor, primarily because it doesn't fit into the current
escape mystique of \.
Does xor really need the
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Does xor really need the punctuation? Does xor really need to be a
primitive?
Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
likely to be more frequent: the 'superpositional' flavor, for example,
is
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 10:11:43AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
likely to be more frequent: the 'superpositional' flavor, for example,
is likely to have significant meaning. Same with 'none', I expect.
| \
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Does xor really need the punctuation? Does xor really need to be a
: primitive?
:
: Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
: likely to be more
Larry Wall:
# and then I looked crosseyed at the // vs \\ proposals, and I
# realized we have a superposition of / and \ that is spelled X. :-)
use Perl::Caseless;
print foo x 6;#?!?
--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@roles=map {Parrot $_} qw(embedding regexen Configure)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, I don't believe in none since it's really easy to say !any()
Does that have any implications for unless?
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: Well, I don't believe in none since it's really easy to say !any()
:
: Does that have any implications for unless?
No. unless reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
(When
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
No. unless reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
nor? Maybe it's $a nor $b?
MikeL
$accumulator += +X10;
Looks like hex arithmetic.
=Austin
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, take 4, with 'X' meaning xor, so you can see it in context. I
warn ya, I'm gonna keep doing this until there's a Final version,
for
some value of Final. ;-) Again, I'm
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123- hex[also h:123?]
256:192.168.1.0
If you guys start trying to reserve punctuation for XNOR, the next perl
cruise is going to be through the Bermuda Triangle...
=Austin
--- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM,
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123
At 4:44 PM -0500 10/28/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:44, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123
0x14 is questionably defined.
0X14 currently is an expression whose value is 14.
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex 123. I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now. (Is it a negative hexadecimal number, or a
On 2002-10-28 at 16:54:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The post that started this thread was a complaint about
leading 0 meaning octal - which is counterintuitive to everyone the
first time they come across it in C or Perl or Java or wherever.
That's not entirely true. Granted the set of the people
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex 123. I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now.
That x:123 part was my placeholder -- my bad, I forgot
At 2:21 PM -0800 10/28/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
While we're at it, maybe we can add in 0rMCM to allow roman numerals too...
OK, see, the sad thing is that I really have no idea whether you're
joking or not. That's how wiggy this thread has gotten.
I am joking--it's
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123
What about specifying endiannes also, or would that be too low-level
to even consider? Currently I don't have any examples for where it
might even be used...
Literals are the wrong place to put that; they represent values, not
storage. Endianness should generally not be visible at the
I think that endian issues are abstracted from literals. The place it's
going to be an issue is the specifiers for pack/unpack or whatever
replaces them.
But the presence of the operator (and speaking of low-frequency
operators, what about bitwise rotation? Will that be the (( and ))
operators?)
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:30:54PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
No. unless reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
nor? Maybe it's $a
At 12:37 AM +0200 10/29/02, Markus Laire wrote:
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the presence of the operator
Er, *what* operator?
: (and speaking of low-frequency operators, what about bitwise rotation?
: Will that be the (( and )) operators?)
I think those will be rejected by anyone who uses either vi or emacs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Well, I don't believe in none since it's really easy to say !any()
:
: Does that have any implications for unless?
No. unless reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
You
Didn't I see an operator list a while back that featured sign-extending
shift?
If not, I apologize.
But on the other hand, we could make a ~ operator that was a
case-preserving indent :-)
=Austin
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123- hex[also h:123?]
256:192.168.1.0 - base 256
(...etc...)
Could this be used to do explicit
Scott Duff asked:
How do we get at the eigenstates of a superposition?
We obviously need another operator! ducks
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C$val.eigenstates
or maybe just C$val.states. The method would work
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:58:57PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C$val.eigenstates
or maybe just C$val.states. The method would work on non-superimposed
values as well, in which cases it
FWIW, if people are really eager to keep ^ for xor (I don't think
anything's clicking great as a replacement), we could of course switch
hyper to ~. That would give us, in part:
? ! + - _ # unary prefixes
+ - * / % ** x xx# binary
+=-=
Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Siracusa wrote:
Larry's just thinking out loud, right?
Yes, and so is everyone else. Most posts here, including Larry's,
are stream-of-conciousness. Heck, in one of the last ones I swear
there were, what, 6 or 7 possible ways to say the same
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:01:31 -0700
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
Cc: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12-dev,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: I hope you're not buying any of this crap
: about Perl 6 being more regular or removing the inconsistencies of
: Perl 5. It simply isn't true.
Hey, sounds like it'd make a great column. Go for it. I'll expect
a little more than an argument by
Larry Wall wrote:
On 26 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: print(length $a), \n;
: print (length $a), \n;
:
: Those look to me like they should do the same thing as each other.
Sorry, they don't look that way to me.
Having slept on it, I'm not as scared
Simon Cozens wrote:
However hard it may be to believe, I'm not just saying this to be
snarky; I am excited by Perl 6 and want to see good things come out of
it. I just want to make sure that the various creative processes are
kept in check. :)
Simon, please keep doing this! I think it's
On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Larry wrote:
If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada
route of specifying the radix explicitly:
Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place of your colon below),
and I seem to recall that syntax
Damian Conway wrote:
:or
:
:given ( /home/temp/, $f )
: - ( str $x , int $n ) {
: $x ~ [one, two, ... , hundreed][$n]
: };
:
:it seems that the last does not work because given take only one argument.
:
: That's right. But this does:
:
:
Simon Cozens wrote:
I just see code like
~~ sub (x) { map { _ = _ } attrs x Inf ^, x }
and get the screaming heaves.
I agree, it's like the punchline to a perl-haters joke. We're supposed
to explain _that_ to people? :-/ NORMAL people? 8-/ And not get
punched in the face?
Maybe there's
Chris Dutton wrote:
So many operators...
Well, this seems a good as time as any to jump in with what's been
sticking in my brain for a while now. Last June, Simon C. wrote a
little philosophical thing, Half measures all around, which generated
the appropriate amount of good discussion. I want
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
| ! - superpositional
all any one (none?)
I don't understand this, on several levels. The lowest level on which
I don't understand it is that testing whether an array is full of threes:
@array 3
makes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
But our version of understandable still means a steep, steep learning
curve.
It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
curve has a 180 degree turn.
Quick: what are the bitwise operators in Java, JavaScript, C, C++, C#,
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So lets have _lots_ of operators, and _lots_ of two-to-four-letter
barewords, so long as they each do something Big, or something
Universal. And let's locale-ize them, so that non-english-speakers can
use 'umu' to mean 'bool', etc. Hey, why the
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 04:10:31PM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Here's try #2. Things that are not true operators or have other
caveats are marked, where known. LMKA.
methods and listops, uncategorized:
my our
map grep
sqrtlogsin cos tan
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 10:33:04AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Brent Dax wrote:
Which would create a superposition of all strings besides the given one,
right? (Oh crap, I think I gave Damian an idea... :^) )
H. Maybe Cnone is starting to grow on me. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-hah! ;-)
I'm worried.
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 01:59:46AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: ? - force to bool context
: ! - force to bool context, negate
: + - force to numeric context
:
Simon Cozens wrote:
I don't understand this, on several levels. The lowest level on which
I don't understand it is that testing whether an array is full of threes:
array 3
Err...that's not what that does. What you wrote creates a scalar value that
superimposes the scalar values C
Larry mused:
Now I'm wondering whether these should be split into:
++|+! - bitwise operations on int
+= +|= +!=
~~|~! - bitwise operations on str
~= ~|= ~!=
I think this is UME (Unnecessary Multiplication of Entities),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
Err...that's not what that does. What you wrote creates a scalar value that
superimposes the scalar values C \@array and C 3 .
To test if an array is full of 3's you'd write:
all(@array) == 3
Ah, I see. So (x y) is equivalent to all(x,y) ?
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 11:24:23AM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 01:59:46AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: ? - force to bool context
: ! - force to
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Larry mused:
:
:
: Now I'm wondering whether these should be split into:
:
: ++|+! - bitwise operations on int
: += +|= +!=
:
: ~~|~! - bitwise operations on str
: ~= ~|=
On 26 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
: But our version of understandable still means a steep, steep learning
: curve.
:
: It's worse than that; for practitioners of many languages, the learning
: curve has a 180 degree turn.
:
: Quick: what are the
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Questions :
* are stream separators ; | in the for loop - operators
in the usual sence ( like , ) or they are pure grammar ?
* is prototype of the subrotine more regexp then expression ?
to what extent it is a regexp ? where it is stored , can we inspect it
Larry Wall wrote:
: Now I'm wondering whether these should be split into:
:
: ++|+! - bitwise operations on int
: += +|= +!=
:
: ~~|~! - bitwise operations on str
: ~= ~|= ~!=
Well, wait, these might have some
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: * are stream separators ; | in the for loop - operators
: in the usual sence ( like , ) or they are pure grammar ?
If ;, probably operator, though behaving a bit differently on
the left of - than on the right, since the right is essentially
a signature.
In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
my Pet @list = qm : name type breed {
fido dog collie
fluffy cat siamese
};
That's still a lot easier to type than some of the alternatives I've
had to do for larger structures.
why ?
my @attrs=qw{ name type breed } ;
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 10:57:01 -0700
: From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: To: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Cc: Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED],
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Subject: Re: Perl6 Operator List
:
: Larry Wall
In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
my Pet @list = qm : name type breed {
fido dog collie
fluffy cat siamese
};
That's still a lot easier to type than some of the alternatives I've
had to do for larger structures.
on the second thought :
my @attrs= ;
my Pet
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: I suspect disjunctive superpositions will get a great deal
: of use as sets, and so the ability to add an element to an
: existing set:
:
: $set |= $new_element;
:
: might be appreciated. But it's no big thing.
Or maybe it is a big thing.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, fearcadi wrote:
: In-reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:
:
: my Pet @list = qm : name type breed {
: fido dog collie
: fluffy cat siamese
: };
:
: That's still a lot easier to type than some of the alternatives I've
: had to do for larger
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
: $union{a} # A | ant
Of course, the interesting question at this point is what
$union{a} = axiomatic;
does if there's more than one hash in the superposition.
Larry
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Here's my own argument for using like/unlike, and none, and a
bunch of other english-sounding things we haven't even talked about
yet.
... I don't think we've put much of a dent in the readability
complaints ... I think we need to care about these concerns a _lot_
Damian Conway wrote:
~~ !~ - smartmatch and/or perl5 '=~' (?)
like unlike- (tentative names)
Do we *really* need the alphabetic synonyms here?
Me no like!
I agree with Damian. Clike wouldn't've been a bad name for the Perl 5
C=~ operator;
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We're also missing the actual C operators that are guaranteed to return 0 or 1:
$x ? $y # C's $x $y
$x ?| $y # C's $x || $y
$x ?! $y # C's, er, !!$x ^ !!$y
And we need those... why? Wouldn't:
Larry Wall wrote:
I think we also need to fix this:
print (length $a), \n;
The problem with Perl 5's rule, If it looks like a function, it *is*
a function, is that the above doesn't actually look like a function
to most people.
Yup, definitely. This is one of the things that is
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 09:23:19PM -, Smylers wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Here's my own argument for using like/unlike, and none, and a
bunch of other english-sounding things we haven't even talked about
yet.
... I don't think we've put much of a dent in the readability
Simon Cozens wrote:
Ah, I see. So (x y) is equivalent to all(x,y) ?
Yes. Cany, Call, and Cone are the n-ary prefix versions
of binary infix C|, C, C! respectively.
One might imagine others of this ilk too, perhaps:
BinaryN-ary
+sum
*prod
You know, \ and friends as xor is appealing to me.
There's no problem with \\ or \=, so that works. It's got nothing to
do with references, but unary | has nothing to do with anything.
Plus, it's parallel (er, perpendicular) to // as err, being logical
and all.
Just to clarify:
\
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
