.method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Michael G Schwern
There's a discussion going on #perl6/irc.freenode.org right now wondering about what .method means. We'd all assumed it meant $self.method (where $self is always the method invocant) but then had a look at Synopsis 12 which states Dot notation can omit the invocant if it's in $_:

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Adam Kennedy
I should add that Darren and I, who both have similar tendencies towards larger scale coding where consistency is far preferred to compactness, both ended up concluding that our style policies will be to _always_ use explicit invocants (except of course for one liners). In the case of the

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Adam Kennedy
That is correct. It probably should have read ...our style policies will be to _always_ use explicit invocants, if .foo ends up meaning $_.foo in the final release (as it does now). (of course, I suspect Darren will keep using them anyways, but then he likes to be even more explicit than I am)

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:04:56PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote: I should add that Darren and I, who both have similar tendencies towards larger scale coding where consistency is far preferred to compactness, both ended up concluding that our style policies will be to _always_ use explicit

Re: s/true/better name/

2005-03-17 Thread Thomas Sandlaß
Larry Wall wrote: $x = whether $a or $b; $x = not $a or $b; would actually be parsed as $x = whether($a) or $b; $x = not($a) or $b; whereas as a native English speaker would probably expect $x = whether($a or $b); Reading this makes me wanting: $x = either $a or $b; $y =

Re: Referencing a caller's slurpy array.

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:49:12PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : I haven't gotten a solid answer on when and how Perl will autogenerate : methods from subs. In general I don't think of it as autogeneration at all, but as failover to a different dispatcher. I can't think of a case where an ordinary

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:00:08PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote: : Personally, .foo meaning $self.foo seems more consistent to my mind, and : I'd happily standardise on implicit invocants. I'm thinking about it. There are definitely things to be said for both sides, and maybe we can come up with a

Re: return of copies vs references

2005-03-17 Thread Luke Palmer
Larry Wall writes: Perl 5 always makes a copy of return values, but that just turns out to not matter for references, since a copy of a reference is as good as the original reference. Perl 5 also propagates scalar/list context into subs. For $:foo it doesn't matter--it always behaves as a

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Luke Palmer
Larry Wall writes: In that case we'd have to say that given and for always require - $x inside methods, and that $x is never automatically aliased to $_. But there are other ramifications with switch statements and exception handlers I have to think through, In particular, the fact that

Re: return of copies vs references

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:06:46AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: : I'll just point out, the rest of this message, with all the autocopy : complexity (according to /some/ people), uses this assumption. It all : happily goes away if $self.:bar returns a list if @:bar is declared. : And I can't, off

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Michael G Schwern
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:00:08PM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote: The only minor thing I can see would be that you will end up with a slight asymmetry question of if we use $:attribute for a private attribute, do we call :method for a private method? That occurs no matter if .method means

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Juerd
Rod Adams skribis 2005-03-16 23:16 (-0600): Doesn't Czip go until the longest input is exhausted, returning undef at the end of the shorter ones? No, as that'd break the most common idiom it introduced: use of an array with 1..Inf, as in the example you're replying to, but also for @foos

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aside from links, that's pretty much the entire perlpodtut boiled down into 7 bullets; a little experimentation to get the hang of it and it all holds together nicely, easy to remember. Yes, yes, yes. Pod is one of the things Perl 5 did almost exactly

Re: return of copies vs references

2005-03-17 Thread Darren Duncan
Thank you, Luke and Larry, for your replies. They did help. For now, I will use the syntax $obj.:bar[] and $obj.:baz{} in the get_bar|baz() accessor methods to get copies returned; if the rules change again, I'll update later. I noticed that the example seemed incomplete, saying only what

retiring wantarray?

2005-03-17 Thread Yuval Kogman
Hola... This message is not about removing wantarray, but finding a better solution for a typical but annoying usage-idiom. sub value_added { # not really a wrapper my $result = original(@args); ... return $result; } Is a typically broken subroutine in perl 5, unless

Re: retiring wantarray?

2005-03-17 Thread Yuval Kogman
BTW, i should mention that given want { } in s06 is nice for replacing the simple kind of wantarray usage cases, but not what this message brought up. In short, i did read it, so don't send me links ;-) -- () Yuval Kogman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xEBD27418 perl hacker /\ kung foo master: /me

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 02:17 -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aside from links, that's pretty much the entire perlpodtut boiled down into 7 bullets; a little experimentation to get the hang of it and it all holds together nicely, easy to remember.

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 15:09 -0800, David Storrs wrote: C[$x[0] $y] # hmmm...parser ok with that? C[$x[0] $] # hmmm...error, but what was intended: $y] or $]]? In the former case, it's fine. See the grammar I sent last night. In the latter case, you would get balanced-[] matching, and

RE: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Garrett Goebel
Autrijus Tang wrote: Luke Palmer wrote: And it would be a shame to disallow the use of $_ in map. Err, wait, I don't think we are discussing whether $_ is to be outlawed in map {}. Perhaps we should consider making $_ readonly in map and grep? -- Garrett Goebel IS Development

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Juerd
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17 8:30 (-0500): This is aesthetic preference. I could cite the reasons that I have an aesthetic preference for the other syntax, but the reality is that angle brackets aren't angle brackets; they are less-than (Elt) and greater- than signs (Egt). We ignore this

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Juerd
Garrett Goebel skribis 2005-03-17 8:37 (-0600): Perhaps we should consider making $_ readonly in map and grep? That's one way to avoid clever tricks. Please let's not. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
I've been thinking about this in my sleep, and at the moment I think I'd rather keep .foo meaning $_.foo, but break the automatic binding of the invocant to $_. Instead of that, I'd like to see a really, really short alias for $self. Suppose we pick o for that, short for object. Then we get

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote: really short alias for $self. Suppose we pick o for that, short for object. Then we get self calls of the form: o.frobme(...) How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell to tell from C..? (Mnemonic reminder: '.'=myself, '..'=my mom - poor analogy,

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:41:26AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: : Then we get self calls of the form: : : o.frobme(...) Sleep Brain would also like to point out that this lets you use o standalone when you want to pass the current object as an ordinary argument to some other class. Likewise for

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:52:15PM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote: : On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote: : : really short alias for $self. Suppose we pick o for that, short : for object. Then we get self calls of the form: : :o.frobme(...) : : How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, Juerd wrote: : Rod Adams skribis 2005-03-16 23:16 (-0600): : Doesn't Czip go until the longest input is exhausted, returning undef : at the end of the shorter ones? That's what has been specified. : No, as that'd break the most common idiom it

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Brian Ingerson
On 17/03/05 00:49 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 13:42 -0800, Brian Ingerson wrote: Well, look over AJS Kwid, and see what you think. The bullet syntax you give could work fine as a replacement for what I demonstrate, but I think everything else is pretty much 1:1. Now it's

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:41:26AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: I've been thinking about this in my sleep, and at the moment I think I'd rather keep .foo meaning $_.foo, but break the automatic binding of the invocant to $_. Instead of that, I'd like to see a really, really short alias for $self.

Re: return of copies vs references

2005-03-17 Thread Thomas Sandlaß
Larry Wall wrote: That's actually weirdly symmetrical with the notion that only subs can impose compile-time context on their arguments, while methods always have to assume list context because you have to generate the argument list before you can know which method you're going to dispatch to.

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Rod Adams
Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:02:47AM +0100, Juerd wrote: : No, as that'd break the most common idiom it introduced: use of an array : with 1..Inf, as in the example you're replying to, but also : : for @foos ¥ 1... - $foo, $i { ... } Maybe we need a short-circuit zip: for

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Michele Dondi
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote: :o.frobme(...) : : How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell to tell from C..? : (Mnemonic reminder: '.'=myself, '..'=my mom - poor analogy, actually!) : : How 'bout a single underscore? _.frobme()?!? Thought about those in the night, but they don't

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Juerd
Larry Wall skribis 2005-03-17 9:05 (-0800): That's what has been specified. Maybe we need a short-circuit zip: for @foos ¥¥ 1... - $foo, $i { ... } Because ¥ is shorter than ¥¥, and because the 1... thing is probably going to be used much, I think it should be the one that returns the

Re: s/true/better name/

2005-03-17 Thread Aldo Calpini
John Macdonald wrote: A shotgun brainstorming of possible operator names: well, I didn't follow this thread very closely (and I don't know if it is officially closed :-) but I suddenly thought about yes. what about: $x = not $a or $b; # vs $x = yes $a or $b; $yesno = yes any(@foo) ==

Re: s/true/better name/

2005-03-17 Thread Brian Ingerson
On 17/03/05 04:40 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:09:40PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: whereas as a native English speaker would probably expect $x = whether($a or $b); So I'm thinking we'll just go back to true, both for that reason, and because it does

Re: s/true/better name/

2005-03-17 Thread Luke Palmer
Mark J. Reed writes: Luke Palmer wrote: Marcus Adair writes: Additionally I question whether this is truly a case improving to the point of least surprise? After all, I don't know a programmer who's going to be surprised by what true means. There are still *some* things you may have to

Re: s/true/better name/

2005-03-17 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 14:09:26 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote: Is wrong. If answer() decides that it should start returning a more interesting value of true, then the test fails. I think the only name for this function, from which you can actually understand what it does, is

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 09:54, Juerd wrote: Pod needs incremental improvements--tables Oops, forgot that one. I'll add it tonight, when I get home from work. See PodTables in the Pugs wiki. Or see the archive of this list, where we hammered it out previously. YMMV. I'll have the second

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Juerd
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17 16:30 (-0500): See PodTables in the Pugs wiki. Or see the archive of this list, where we hammered it out previously. Since when is anything in Perl 6, except its name, set in stone? PodTables is a more detailed and more consistent approach to a suggestion I

Re: .method == $self.method or $_.method?

2005-03-17 Thread Yuval Kogman
I think this should mean $_, and if the user really really really wants to do .foo on the invocant, then why not just say: method bar ($_:) { .foo; } This keeps $_ unambiguosly the 'it', while 'this' is more specific. Think: it puts the lotion on the skin method blah {

Re: s/true/better name/

2005-03-17 Thread Juerd
Brian Ingerson skribis 2005-03-17 11:57 (-0800): 'Tis a pity nobody suggested `tis()`. That sounds more like a smart match on the topic: if tis 'foo' { ... } if $_ ~~ 'foo' { ... } 't = $_, is = ~~ Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:39, Juerd wrote: Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-03-17 16:30 (-0500): See PodTables in the Pugs wiki. Or see the archive of this list, where we hammered it out previously. Since when is anything in Perl 6, except its name, set in stone? PodTables is a more detailed

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:28, Brian Ingerson wrote: The interesting thing to me is that all 3 syntaxes map over the same data model and thus are easily interchangable. The other interesting thing is that all three could be supported without affecting the Perl5 or Perl6 syntax proper. If any

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically, I like the use of angle brackets in Pod. Angle brackets are simple, distinctive shapes; they remain wide in variable-width This is aesthetic preference. I could cite the reasons that I have an aesthetic preference for the other syntax,

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 17:07, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and the hacks in pod syntax (e.g. C ) to get around this are glaring anti- huffmanisms. Whatever bracketing character we decide to use, there will always be occasions where we need to

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Sam Vilain
Aaron Sherman wrote: Sam mugwump Vilain refers to each of these syntaxes as /Pod dialects/. He is working on more formally defining the common model or AST that these dialects map to. Why? Seriously, why on earth do you want to encourage the proliferation of variant markup languages?! There aren't

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 03:18, Rod Adams wrote: I just posted a fresh copy of S29 to: http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.pod http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.html From there: =head2 Obsolete =item chop Chop removes the last character from a string. Is that no longer useful,

Re: return of copies vs references

2005-03-17 Thread Darren Duncan
It occurs to me that I may have requested something before that would cause more problems than it solves if implemented. So I have a different idea that would hopefully be efficient, powerful, and easy to learn. In short, make it work much like Perl 5. The idea is Perl methods and subs will

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread gcomnz
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:16:00 -0700, gcomnz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way, I think I've seen a few people suggest some sort of syntax-switching mechanism for Pod6. The day people have to think about what dialect of Pod they're using is the

Re: return of copies vs references

2005-03-17 Thread Darren Duncan
As an addendum, my idea would also apply to non-attribute variables. If you say 'my %abc' in a method or sub, and later say 'return %abc', then a reference to %abc will be returned by default. So its not like I'm treating attributes differently. -- Darren Duncan At 3:27 PM -0800 3/17/05, Darren

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread David Storrs
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:04:53PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 12:28, Brian Ingerson wrote: The interesting thing to me is that all 3 syntaxes map over the same data model and thus are easily interchangable. It is, however, contrary to the spirit of POD for you or

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Rod Adams
Aaron Sherman wrote: On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 03:18, Rod Adams wrote: I just posted a fresh copy of S29 to: http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.pod http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.html From there: =head2 Obsolete =item chop Chop removes the last character from a string. Is that

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Damian Conway
[No, I'm not back; I'm just passing by. But I feel that I need to comment on this whole issue] Even before Brian announced Kwid, I was privately suggesting to Larry that Markdown (http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/) was an excellent evolution of mark-up notations and might be well

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Damian Conway
Oh, and I forgot to mention: In the contents of any block, any line with '=' in column zero and a whitespace character in column 1, has those two characters removed when the contents are extracted. So you can write: =begin data POSSIBLE_POD_DIRECTIVES = = =doh -- Oh, dear! Oh frikking dear! =

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 18:06 -0600, Rod Adams wrote: First off, thanks for the reply. Very nice work you're doing! I'll listen to proposals about how to support better randoms. For now I think Crand is a standard PRNG. Yes, absolutely. If I gave a contrary impression, I did not mean to. I

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 02:18 -0600, Rod Adams wrote: I just posted a fresh copy of S29 to: http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.pod http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.html Couple more points from the docs (mostly to the list, but some to you, Rod): multi sub grep (Any|Junction $test : [EMAIL

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:47 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: Methods on numeric values (should be defined as pseudo-methods on unboxed numbers): chr hex oct Sigh... well, now I know what Ctrl-Return does in Evolution :-/ Ok, so what I was getting at was that the above three

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Rod Adams
Aaron Sherman wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 18:06 -0600, Rod Adams wrote: This is a SEPARATE need from the need for a repeatable, standard PRNG, and should always operate off of the best source of entropy available to the program. Right now, that's /dev/urandom (for non-blocking hybridized

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Rod Adams
Aaron Sherman wrote: On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 02:18 -0600, Rod Adams wrote: I just posted a fresh copy of S29 to: http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.pod http://www.rodadams.net/Perl/S29.html Couple more points from the docs (mostly to the list, but some to you, Rod): multi sub grep

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Rod Adams
Aaron Sherman wrote: On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:47 -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: Methods on numeric values (should be defined as pseudo-methods on unboxed numbers): chr hex oct Sigh... well, now I know what Ctrl-Return does in Evolution :-/ Ok, so what I was getting at was that

Junctions Question

2005-03-17 Thread Stevan Little
Hello All, I have been working on some misc. junction tests for Pugs and I ran into an item which I am not sure of. It has to do with a junction of variables which is then assigned to variable itself, and how bound the variables inside the junction are. This is best illustrated with code, so

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:31:07PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote: : Aaron Sherman wrote: : Methods on numeric values (should be defined as pseudo-methods on : unboxed numbers): : :chr :hex : oct : : : : Sigh... well, now I know what Ctrl-Return does in Evolution :-/ : : Ok, so

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:11:09PM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote: : =head2 Obsolete : : =item chop : : Chop removes the last character from a string. Is that no longer useful, : or has chomp simply replaced its most common usage? I expect chop still has its uses. Also, since $/ is

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Uri Guttman
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LW oct and hex are arguably misnamed, since most functions are named by LW what they produce, not by what they take as input. I don't know what LW the replacement should be, though. Maybe it's not worth fixing. from_oct, from_hex which state

Re: Junctions Question

2005-03-17 Thread Luke Palmer
Stevan Little writes: my $a = 'a'; my $b = ''; my $c = ''; my $any_of_them = $b | $c | $a; # this test passes ok('a' eq $any_of_them, '($b | $c | $a) matches at least one a'); $b = 'b'; $c = 'c'; # this test passes ... ok('a' eq $any_of_them, '($b | $c | $a) matches at least one

Re: [Fwd: Re: [RFC] A more extensible/flexible POD (ROUGH-DRAFT)]

2005-03-17 Thread Sam Vilain
Damian Conway wrote: [No, I'm not back; I'm just passing by. But I feel that I need to comment on this whole issue] Thanks! This message has lots of useful information that I would have otherwise probably missed. It seems that the basic premise of the POD document object model gels well with

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Cdo filename I'll tackle at the same time as Ceval. It's likely : staying in some form. I use it from time to time when I'm patching : together several automation scripts. (Remember that Perl gets used for : the quick and dirty as well as the big and

Re: New S29 draft up

2005-03-17 Thread Matt Diephouse
Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LW oct and hex are arguably misnamed, since most functions are named by LW what they produce, not by what they take as input. I don't know what LW the replacement should be, though. Maybe it's not worth