On Tuesday, Nov 5, 2002, at 04:58 Asia/Tokyo, Larry Wall wrote:
(B It would be really funny to use cent $B!q(B, pound $B!r(B, or yen (J\(B as a sigil,
(B though...
(B
(BWhich 'yen' ? I believe you already know \ (U+005c - REVERSE SOLIDUS)
(Bis prited as a yen figure in most of
This UTF discussion has got silly.
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach it.
The Gillemets are coming through fine, but most of the other heiroglyphs need
a lot to be desired.
Lets consider
Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Phew! I'm slightly concerned at this list making Piers's job too easy,
but have tried to minimize that effect by posting on a Monday (meaning
that this mail is ineligible for inclusion in the next summary and is
likely to be out of date by the time of the
Me wrote:
YAK for marking something.
I've been assuming that a keyword will only have
meaning in contexts where the keyword is valid.
Given the shiny new top-down grammar system, there's
no requirement for keywords to be global. (Context
sensitive keywords fall out of Perl 6 grammars
naturally
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:31:24 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Meaning that the list:
+^- force to numeric context, complement
~^- force to string context, complement
simply becomes:
^ - complement (type-specific)
Does this include booleans? I really liked the idea
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:21:54PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
Larry wrote:
But let's keep it
out of the signature, I think. In other words, if something like
for @x ∥ @y ∥ @z - $x, $y, $z { ... }
is to work, then
@result = @x ∥ @y ∥ @z;
has to interleave @x, @y,
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
Of course, I also think I'm allowed to be a little inconsistent in
forcing things like ?op? on people. After all, there's gotta be
some advantage to being the Fearless Leader...
Which kind of begs the question: Who are
Here's my current understanding of what's under discussion for for-loops:
Larry wants to eliminate the ; from the RHS of the -, so the only thing
for needs to know about the RHS is the number and types of the
arguments. This puts the specification about how to generate those
arguments on the
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well? I think the common case
will be to pull N elements from each list rather than N from one, M
from another, etc. So, in the spirit of timtowtdi:
for zip(a,b,c) - $x,$y,$z { ... }
sub zip (\:ref repeat{1,}) {
my $max =
I just need a little clarification about yield().
consider this sub:
sub iterate(foo) {
yield for foo;
undef;
}
(Where yield defaults to the topic) Presumably.
a = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
while($_ = iterate a) {
print
}
Will print 12345. Or is that:
this is not a description or definition of something. It is just set
of questions and confusions that I have when I encounter words like
variable , name , alias, assign in perl . In the form of
explanation. But actually these are questions .
so , what follows is not the how it actually works
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 06:51 AM, Peter Haworth wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:31:24 -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Meaning that the list:
+^- force to numeric context, complement
~^- force to string context, complement
simply becomes:
^ - complement (type-specific)
Thanks, I've been hoping for someone to post that list. Taking it one
step further, we can assume that the only chars that can be used are
those which:
-- don't have an obvious meaning that needs to be reserved
-- appear decently on all platforms
-- are distinct and recognizable in the tiny
I'm all for one or two unicode operators if they're chosen properly
(and I trust Larry to do that since he's done a stellar job so far),
but what's the mechanism to generate unicode operators if you don't
have access to a unicode-aware editor/terminal/font/etc.? IS the only
recourse to use the
ralph hypothesized:
My imagination suggests to me that in a
typical short perl 6 script, between 20%
and 50% of all sub defs would use the
upscope topic... ;
That's some imagination you've got there! ;-)
My estimate (based on the -- not inconsiderable -- code base of
my own modules) is closer
Ken Fox wrote:
I've been assuming that a keyword will only have
meaning in contexts where the keyword is valid.
Given the shiny new top-down grammar system, there's
no requirement for keywords to be global. (Context
sensitive keywords fall out of Perl 6 grammars
naturally -- just the opposite of
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 05:13:45AM -0600, Me wrote:
relatively few subroutines need access
to the upscope topic.
Well, this is a central issue. What are
the real percentages going to be here?
Just how often will one type the likes
of
- is given($foo is topic) { ... }
rather
Dan Kogai wrote:
We already have source filters in perl5 and I'm pretty much sure
someone will just invent yet another 'use operators = ascii;' kind
of stuff in perl6.
I think that's backwards to have operators being funny characters by
default but requiring explicit declaration to use
Richard Proctor wrote:
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
it.
... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
will work under UTF8 and Latin-1 and Windows ...
What
Scott Duff wrote:
Very nice. The n-ary zip operator.
Um ... could we have a zip functor as well?
Yes, I expect so. Much as C|, C, and C^ will be operator versions
of Cany, Call, and Cone.
And I'd suggest that it be implemented something like:
sub zip(ARRAY *sources; $by = 1) {
if
On Tue 05 Nov, Smylers wrote:
Richard Proctor wrote:
I am sitting at a computer that is operating in native Latin-1 and is
quite happy - there is no likelyhood that UTF* is ever likely to reach
it.
... Therefore the only addition characters that could be used, that
will work under
one more data point from a person who lived, travelled and used computers
in a few countries (Romania, France, Germany, Belgium, UK, Canada, US,
Holland, Italy). paraphrasing:
rule 1: if it's not on my keyboard, it doesn't exist;
rune 2: if it's not on everybody's keyboard, it doesn't exist.
As one of the instigators of this thread, I submit that we've probably
argued about the Unicode stuff enough. The basic issues are now known,
and it's known that there's no general agreement on any of this stuff,
nor will there ever be. To wit:
-- Extended glyphs might be extremely useful
23 matches
Mail list logo
