On 2002-10-30 at 12:47:17, Larry Wall wrote:
(Anybody know of a version of pine that does UTF-8?)
Yes - it's called mutt. ☺
Seriously, I do highly recommend switching from pine to mutt. It's not
a completely painless transition, since mutt is more ELMlike than PINElike,
but I know many who have
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 at 12:17 -0800, Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
I'd even be willing to give up ´foo bar bazª meaning qw(foo bar baz)
for this.
I can't see that right (MacOSX Jaguar) in the email; to me it looks
like a
-Original Message-
From: Austin Hastings [mailto:austin_hastings;yahoo.com]
How do you write a in a Windows based environment? (Other than by
copying them from Larry's emails or loading MSWord to do
insert-symbol)
You could use the Character Map accessory to put
the character
Luke Palmer wrote:
I wonder if things should have a more general interface than
numerical indices. I've wanted linked lists in perl, and every time I
do a splice on an array I cringe for speed reasons.
Heh, we could use my linked array implementation. Or not.
Please have a look at list.c,
%a ^:union[op] %b
%a :foo[op]:bar %b
I think that any operators over 10 characters should
be banished, and replaced with functions.
I'd agree with that. In fact probably anything over 4,
and even 4 is seriously pushing it.
I'll clarify that I am talking here about using
On 31 Oct 2002 at 0:40, John Williams wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
%a ^:union[op] %b
%a :foo[op]:bar %b
I think that any operators over 10 characters should be banished, and
replaced with functions.
I don't think there should be any upper limit for operator-lengths.
* Dyck, David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [31 Oct 2002 19:21]:
[...]
You could use the Character Map accessory to put
the character into the clipboard, or
press the alt and hold the alt key while typing 0171 (or 0187)
alt+0171
alt+0187
To be honest, as easy as it is to type ^a^v or ^k,[1] it's
Uri Guttman writes:
%hash1.values [+]= %hash2{%hash1.keys} ;
but here is exactly example analogous to
my Dog $x = new Dog .
which was discusse dand turned to
my Dog $x .= new ;
It's (almost) clear what you want when you write
%hash1 [+]= %hash2 ;
so why to screen the
Michael Lazzaro writes:
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 -- something that keeps a
Me writes:
%a ^:union[op] %b
%a :foo[op]:bar %b
I think that any operators over 10 characters should
be banished, and replaced with functions.
I agree. But I think that we can get away here with just hash
properties , just like hash behaviour in regexps is
Yesterday Aaron Crane wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
a `+ b
In my experience, many people actually don't get the backtick
character at all.
Yes. I think that might be a good reason _for_ using backtick in vector
operators:
* Backticks aren't used in any other operators, so
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:16:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday Aaron Crane wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
@a `+ @b
In my experience, many people actually don't get the backtick
character at all.
Yes. I think that might be a good reason _for_ using backtick
--- Dyck, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Austin Hastings [mailto:austin_hastings;yahoo.com]
How do you write a in a Windows based environment? (Other than by
copying them from Larry's emails or loading MSWord to do
insert-symbol)
You could use
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
? ?| ?^ - [maybe] C-like bool
operations
?= ?|= ?^= - (result is always just 1 or
0)
[?][?|][?^] - (hyperversions)
[?]= [?|]= [?^]=
[?=]
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Larry wrote:
Possibly we might even extend the notion of hash to any junk.
%hash = 1 | 2 | 3;
So you're suggestion that a normal hash is a junction of pairs???
Damian Conway admits: Everything in Perl6 is 'Junk'
Who can't see *this*
Here is an extensive FAQ for Unicode and UTF-8:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html
and here is a test file that will show you how many of the most common
glyphs (WGL4, via Microsoft) you are capable of displaying in your
current setup:
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
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Iain 'Spoon' Truskett wrote:
: To be honest, as easy as it is to type ^a^v or ^k,[1] it's still
Thanks, I didn't know it was that «easy» in vim. :-)
: typing an awful lot just to get a character. Surely the Perl operator
: Huffman encoding should take into account the
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
: I don't think there should be any upper limit for operator-lengths.
There will never be any official limits. Perl is not about arbitrary
limits. But I will tell you that I only added = to Perl 5 because
I knew there would never be a == operator. We'll
Austin Hastings writes:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. But I think that we can get away here with just hash
properties , just like hash behaviour in regexps is controlled by
properties .
e.g.
union:
(%a,%b) ^is no_strict_keys ;
(%a %b) ^is default_value
Austin Hastings writes:
but I am not shure ...
sure
thanks . sorry that I write so badly . I'll try to be better .
(Unless you do this on purpose :-)
Cheers,
=Austin
__
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs
Me writes:
union:
intersection :
How would this work for hashes with differing properties?
%a ^is strict_keys;
%b ^is no_strict_keys;
What would happen?
in the resulting hash only ( and all ) keys of %a will be present.
because %b *admits* unknown keys but %a
Larry Wall writes:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: That's one reason why I suggested control of this sort
: of thing should be a property of the operation, not of
: the operands.
I think that by and large, the operator knows whether it wants to
do union or intersection. When
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
Thats ugly, IMO.
Now this is going to sound wild (probably) and I have not thought too much
about it and there are probably others who can see the pitfalls quicker
then me. But could () be available for hyper operators ?
I will sit back now and watch the firewaorks, as I wont be in
Michael Lazzaro writes:
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 -- something that keeps a
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math has given us, check out:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf
now *theres* some brackets!
MikeL
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Me wrote:
: That's one reason why I suggested control of this sort
: of thing should be a property of the operation, not of
: the operands.
I think that by and large, the operator knows whether it wants to
do union or intersection. When you're doing +, it's obviously
Me writes:
union:
intersection :
%a ^is strict_keys;
%b ^is no_strict_keys;
in the resulting hash only ( and all ) keys of %a will be present.
because %b *admits* unknown keys but %a does not.
Yes, but the general case is that one wants to be
Larry Wall:
# Perl 6 is written in Unicode.
Great. That's a wonderful policy. But it *shouldn't influence routine
coding in any way*. I have no problem with user-defined Unicode
operators. I have a *huge* problem with built-in Unicode operators, and
a gargantuan problem with built-in Unicode
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:11:00 -0800
From: Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math
Ed Peschko wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
I think decent formatting would make it clearer:
fora; b
- $x is rw; y {
$x = $y[5];
}
But this isn't very scalable:
Sure it is. You just have to think more two-dimensionally...
for a; b; c; d; e
- $a_variable1 is
Austin Hastings wrote:
In the C that I learned, the ^| ops were bitwise.
Likewise, the || ops were lazy booleans.
So what's a single-letter boolean act like? Is it lazy? Does it retain
its bitwise-ness but (since boolean) force evaluation for 1 or 0 first?
I just don't understand what the
On 2002-10-31 at 12:45:23, David Wheeler wrote:
Plus, it turns out not to be at all hard to type on Mac OS X. ;-)
Well, the angle quotes happen to fall within Latin-1, and so they're
easier to get to. On Windows you can either set up special key mappings or
just type ALT+171 for « and ALT+187
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 12:18 PM, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to Michael Lazzaro:
?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
??? ???
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Am I the only person who discovered Korean
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Markus Laire wrote:
The really great thing about the French quotes is that they visually
keep the user aware of the composition. «+=» is obviously a variety
of
+=, whereas ^+= is not obvious, though shorter. (Square brackets are
Damian Conway writes:
BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
Of course, I can't speak for Larry, but in the end I concluded
that
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if you really want to drool at all the neat glyphs that the
wonderful, magical world of math has given us, check out:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2A00.pdf
now *theres* some brackets!
Ooh! Let's use 2AF7 and 2AF8 for
Graham Barr wrote:
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:16:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... using backtick in vector operators ... A pair of backticks could
be used if the vector-equals distinction is required:
@a `+`= @b;
@a `+=` @b;
Thats ugly, IMO.
Oh, I wasn't claiming that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) for @a - $x ; @b - $y { ... }
===
2) for @a ; @b - $x ; $y { ... }
You've got it! Semicolon naturally breaks things apart, not groups them
together!
--
Anything to do with HTML processing /usually/ involves a pact
with an evil supernatural
While writing documentation: a trivial question on the boolean type,
Cbit:
my bit $light_switch;
Q: Can bits/bools be undefined?
Perl conventions would indicate yes. Does that mean that an array of
bits:
my bit bitfield;
takes up, at minimum, two bits per, um, bit?
Sorry if this
--
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:26:13
Brent Dax wrote:
I can honestly say at this point that I'd rather give up $iterator
than lose hyperops.
I was thinking the same thing not long ago. But now
that I think about it, is operator ever going to be
confused for $File_Handle? The vector operation
Erik Steven Harrison writes:
All that said, can anyone come up with a case to
confuse op with $File_Handle?
it seems that parser cannot confuse them because op is operator and
parser expect operator, while $File_Handle is a term .
but human can confuse .
I personally also like
Erik Steven Harrison:
# All that said, can anyone come up with a case to
# confuse op with $File_Handle?
If you assume infinite lookahead, it's fine, but if not...
something ...
Is that a call to
sub something() returns(IO::Handle)
or a hypered
sub
* Ed Peschko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 07:19]:
[...]
for @a - $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw;
@b - $b_variable is rw;
@c - $c_variable is rw;
@d - $d_variable is rw;
@e - $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw;
{
}
is much, *much* clearer. IMO
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:45:16 -0800
From: Erik Steven Harrison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sent-Mail: off
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender-Ip: 152.18.50.63
Organization: Angelfire
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 02:43 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Q: Can bits/bools be undefined?
Perl conventions would indicate yes.
IIRC, native data types, which are all lowercase (e.g., int, bit, long,
etc.) cannot be undef. However, their class equivalents (e.g., Int,
Bit, Long,
On 31 Oct 2002 at 15:59, Mark J. Reed wrote:
Once you wander away from Latin-1 into the more general world
of Unicode, you start running into trouble on the input side.
On Windows you pretty much have to use the Character map accessory.
Emacs and vim still work on UNIX, but I don't know of a
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
traits = any ( ... )
requirements = .. ..
if $requirements eq $traits
Should that be traits = all()?
No. Because later we say (effectively):
print
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
Oops. About that op thing, I was wrong. Though there is a case
that does it:
sub bar();
sub postfix:bar($x) returns IO::Handle;
$x = length bar;
If it's possible to have a distinct sub and an operator with the same
name. If not, I believe the distinction is precisely the same as
for a - $x, $y { ... $x is topic ... }
for a ; b -
$x, $y ; $z { ... WHAT is topic ? ... }
what is topic in multi stream loop ?
arcadi
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:16:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Damian Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
traits = any (
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:16:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... using backtick in vector operators ... A pair of backticks could
be used if the vector-equals distinction is required:
@a `+`= @b;
@a `+=` @b;
Thats ugly, IMO.
Oh, I wasn't claiming that it's pretty. I
Markus Laire:
# Emacs and vim also works on Windows, not just UNIX.
So does DOS 'edit'. That doesn't mean Windows users use it. Windows
users want tools that look and act like Windows tools--if they didn't,
they'd be using another OS. Neither GNU emacs nor xemacs fits the bill,
and I doubt vim
get guillemot
Taken.
Extra credit for those of you who remembered that that's a bird, not a
punctuation mark.
--
Debbie Pickett http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~debbiep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it, err, Mildred? O.K., no. How 'bout - Diana? Rachel? Ariel, her name is
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 03:47 PM, Deborah Ariel Pickett
wrote:
(Whine: my Perl undergrad students are too young to remember or
appreciate text adventures. At least some of you oldsters here will
understand.)
Hey! We're not old, we're just version 1.0!
Can we have a grue operator?
actually , ones we decide that ^ *is necessary for vectorization , we
can allow other brackets , optional brackets ( where unambiguous ) ,
and spaces inside the brackets :
a ^+= b
a ^[+]= b
a ^(+)= b
a ^( + )= b
a ^{ + }= b
a ^{+}= b
a ^[ + ]= b
right, and what does this
On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
Of course, I can't speak for Larry,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 07:54:01AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
traits = any ( ... )
requirements = .. ..
if $requirements eq $traits
Should that be traits = all()?
No. Because later we say (effectively):
print True love\n
if all(desiderata) eq
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 03:08:37 +
From: Andrew Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
On Fri, Nov 01,
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Erik Steven Harrison writes:
:
:
: All that said, can anyone come up with a case to
: confuse op with $File_Handle?
:
:
:
: it seems that parser cannot confuse them because op is operator and
: parser expect operator, while
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: While writing documentation: a trivial question on the boolean type,
: Cbit:
Please don't think of Cbit as a boolean type. There is no boolean
type in Perl, only a boolean context. Or looking at it from the
other direction, *every* type is a
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
If no one saw them then it could well be a problem on my end.
I'm trying to use a mailer (pine) that doesn't know about UTF-8 in
a «+» b
I'm using Pine 4.33 on FreeBSD 4.3, and I see these fine.
--Dks
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
: Austin Hastings wrote:
:
: In the C that I learned, the ^| ops were bitwise.
:
: Likewise, the || ops were lazy booleans.
:
: So what's a single-letter boolean act like? Is it lazy? Does it retain
: its bitwise-ness but (since boolean) force
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Dave Storrs wrote:
: On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: If no one saw them then it could well be a problem on my end.
: I'm trying to use a mailer (pine) that doesn't know about UTF-8 in
:
: a «+» b
:
: I'm using Pine 4.33 on FreeBSD 4.3, and I see
* Larry Wall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [31 Oct 2002 08:22]:
[...]
This is currently running in a window that does Latin-1 rather than
UTF-8. Do these French quotes come through?
@a «+» @b
The window may say Latin-1, but the mail header said UTF-8.
As it happens, I couldn't see them until I
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Iain 'Spoon' Truskett wrote:
: This is currently running in a window that does Latin-1 rather than
: UTF-8. Do these French quotes come through?
:
: a «+» b
:
: The window may say Latin-1, but the mail header said UTF-8.
:
: As it happens, I couldn't see them until I
* Larry Wall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 15:59]:
[...]
I was misconfigured here. My pine was marking it as UTF-8 even though
the window was Latin-1. So you ought to be able to see this: @a «*» @b.
That appeared perfectly.
I'm definitely going to look into mutt though...gotta have
Larry wrote:
I don't much care whether they short-circuit or not. I could argue it
either way. I think it'd be okay if they short-circuit. Anybody who
uses an operator like ? expecting it to force a side effect on the
second expression is nuts. And there's something (though not much)
to
70 matches
Mail list logo
