Re: Curious: - vs .

2001-04-27 Thread Piers Cawley
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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);

Re: Curious: - vs .

2001-04-27 Thread Bart Lateur
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bar = method $obj() would be more consistent with perl's current $object = new Class() syntax. -- Bart.

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-27 Thread Damien Neil
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 to

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:04:33PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: 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:

Re: Curious: - vs .

2001-04-27 Thread Buddha Buck
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bar = method $obj() would be more consistent with perl's current $object = new Class() syntax. Yes, well, some people want to get rid

Re: Curious: - vs .

2001-04-27 Thread Buddha Buck
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about borrowing from Objective C? [$object method(foo, bar)]; How do you create an anonymous

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Eric Roode
Larry Wall wrote: [wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6] In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce Standard Perl 6. Larry As a member of a

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-27 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
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 rather

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 04:19 PM 4/26/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: 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

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 09:16 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote: Larry Wall wrote: [wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6] In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Larry Wall
Dan Sugalski writes: : It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of : some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it. : I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in. : Rather having use site_policy; set limits that

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread John Porter
Larry Wall wrote: On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're going to speak in before they start speaking. On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what a pragma is. Even my could be

Re: a modest proposal Re: s/./~/g

2001-04-27 Thread David L. Nicol
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. Tilde

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Larry Wall
John Porter writes: : Larry Wall wrote: : On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're : going to speak in before they start speaking. : : On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy : of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 01:16 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Dan Sugalski writes: : It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of : some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it. : I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in. :

Re: Flexible parsing (was Tying Overloading)

2001-04-27 Thread Larry Wall
Dan Sugalski writes: : Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser : tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may : well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start: : :use site_policy qw(Python); : : for modules that