On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:10:10AM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
That means, if you have a long list of scalars rou want to cat
together and it will run over the edge of your line
you can do this:
$onethroughten = $one$two$three$four$five
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 08:33:33AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
How about symbolic refs to function names?
$a = $x ? hop : skip;
$b = $y ? scotch : soda;
$a.$b;# call one of hop.scotch, skip.scotch, hop.soda, skip.soda
5.005_03 and under required parens after the method
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:23:47PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:16:46AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
SPACE SENSITIVE and SOME OF US HAVE TO TEACH IT. Do you understand yet?
Just for the record, I'm totally with Simon here. Having . do triple
duty (decimals, method
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
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 06:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
Bart Lateur writes:
: Er... hip hip hurray?!?!
:
: This is precisely the reason why I came up with the raw idea of
: highlander variables in the first place: because it's annoying not being
: able to access a hash passed to a sub
At 09:16 AM 4/26/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:33:33AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
| Alternately, we can overload . to do a deref on (blessed?) references,
| and
| concat otherwise.
I think this would lead to hard to find bugs when someone mispelled
the idea of a dereference operator dumbfounds lots
of folks. What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a
pointer? A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so
is the syntax.
So you want a method invocation syntax that doesn't remind people of
references.
Fred Heutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A vote against the proposed switches, for an unbearably lazy (ok,
selfish) reason. Having to use the shift key with any non-alphanumeric
keypress always feels like a lot of extra work. This is why I have long
avoided underscores in variable names.
Eric Roode writes:
: John Porter wrote:
: IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
:
: I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down tighter that almost any
language that ever existed.
: Super-flexible,
Dan Sugalski writes:
: And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program
: essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out
: reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today,
: but that's probably more due to its RPN syntax)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:13:30PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Eric Roode writes:
: John Porter wrote:
: IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
:
: I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down
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
I have a different suggestion:
replace - with ~
~ is already Perlish for glues to something related.
That's a different construct than concatenates.
Fred
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual
distinction between $object and method().
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
messages not unlike:
foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and 10.0.16: see the LRM.
Ever used the Mac C compiler?
--
Language shapes
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote:
So why not
$object!method(foo, bar);
In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient
To me this whole thing looks like bike shedding at it's worst at
this point. Please stop and read this
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO_8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING
and possibly this
$foo = [$one, $two, $three]; # creates an anonymous list.
$foo = [$object method(foo, bar)];
This would interpret as
$foo[0] == $object, etc...
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:20 PM
To: Piers Cawley
Cc: Bart
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
messages not unlike:
foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and
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, that
A vote against the proposed switches, for an unbearably lazy (ok,
selfish) reason. Having to use the shift key with any non-alphanumeric
keypress always feels like a lot of extra work. This is why I have long
avoided underscores in variable names. (This is the same reason
I avoid = which not
Bart Lateur writes:
: Yeah. But no cheers then. The problem still remains: you can access a
: hash in the normal way in plain code, but inside a sub, you can mainly
: only access a passed hash through a reference.
Won't be a problem.
: It's annoying to basically having two ways of doing
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 counted
24 matches
Mail list logo
