S12 says:
subtype Str_not2b of Str where /^[isnt|arent|amnot|aint]$/;
My brain parses this as:
subtype Str_not2b[Str where /.../];
Or:
subtype Str_not2b[Str] where /.../;
Neither of which really reflect how it is really parsed. It looks like
`subtype` has a special syntax. I
Luke Palmer wrote:
S12 says:
subtype Str_not2b of Str where /^[isnt|arent|amnot|aint]$/;
My brain parses this as:
subtype Str_not2b[Str where /.../];
Or:
subtype Str_not2b[Str] where /.../;
I guess my mental parsing problems stem from the fact
that it was you who told me about the
On 2 May, Luke Palmer wrote:
: S12 says:
:
: subtype Str_not2b of Str where /^[isnt|arent|amnot|aint]$/;
:
: My brain parses this as:
:
: subtype Str_not2b[Str where /.../];
:
: Or:
:
: subtype Str_not2b[Str] where /.../;
:
: Neither of which really reflect how it is really
HaloO,
I don't know if this is usefull and if it is were this information
should be put. I've reworked the Code class chart from A06 to look
as follows:
invocant(s) : Code
_ :__ ___|___
| |: | |
SubMethod Method : Sub
Hi,
Thomas Sandla wrote:
the main reason for this mail: aliasing $_ in methods to the first
invocant would badly mix these two concepts!
I think so, too.
I'd like to see:
$.foo# attribute of $?SELF
@.foo# ditto
%.foo# ditto
.foo# method of $?SELF
.foo#
David Storrs wrote:
Let's move this away from simple types like Str and Int for a moment.
If you consider them simple...
Tell me what this does:
class Tree {
method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is abstract! }
}
class Birch {
method bark() { return White, papery }
}
On Mon, 2 May 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Tell me what this does:
class Tree { method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is
abstract! }
}
class Birch { method bark() { return White, papery }
}
class Oak { method bark() { return Dark,
Here's a basic proposal for the open and pipe builtins. It was discussed
on #perl6 today and seemed okay to the people there. I'd like to hear
your comments, since the internals side of much of this is ready and is
looking for an interface.
module Prelude-0.0.1;
class IO;
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-02 22:25 (+0300):
open 'ls', '|-'; # or even
open 'ls', :pipe = 'from'
I dislike the hard-to-tell-apart symbols '' and '' for modes. 'r' and
'w' are much easier, and get rid of the awful left/right mnemonic that
fails to make sense to GUI users.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:06:32AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 09:37 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: We're thinking at the moment that `while` will probably look like this:
:
: sub statement:while (cond is lazy, block) {
: [...]
:
:
On 2005-05-02 15:52, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-02 22:25 (+0300):
open 'ls', '|-'; # or even
open 'ls', :pipe = 'from'
I dislike the hard-to-tell-apart symbols '' and '' for modes. 'r' and
'w' are much easier, and get rid of the awful
I take some of that back actually, left-to-right directionality has almost
nothing to do with understanding the and symbols. The arrow points in
the direction information is flowing, which is left-to-right for but
right-to-left for . I mean, ³filename² is pointing at the file, so the
Mark Reed skribis 2005-05-02 16:13 (-0400):
Holy matter of opinion, Batman. and ¹ are much easier to tell apart
than r¹ and w¹;
Obviously we disagree.
What are the characters around the code supposed to be, by the way? Your
mailer tells my mailer that you're sending iso-8859-1, but I
On 2005-05-02 16:35, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are the characters around the code supposed to be, by the way? Your
mailer tells my mailer that you're sending iso-8859-1, but I seriously
doubt that.
Argh. Bad Entourage, no biscuit. Back to Mail as soon as I get Tiger
installed,
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 10:25:08PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: Here's a basic proposal for the open and pipe builtins. It was discussed
: on #perl6 today and seemed okay to the people there. I'd like to hear
: your comments, since the internals side of much of this is ready and is
: looking for an
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:23:36PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: : [1] Should this be Perl(..5) style?
:
: I think that'd be Perl-{1..5} style, as it currently stands, and
: assuming you want to use the use syntax. Also, we haven't specced
Er, make that Perl-(1..5) instead. One week in Russia and
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 08:24:14PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Yeah, is lazy should be fine for now. The feature is definitely
: there, but it might end up being called something different. is
: braceless?
I think is braceless is better, if only because it's longer.
Though I still suspect it's
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:57:01AM -0500, David Christensen wrote:
: 1) What type of introspection, if any, are we providing to the language
: level? I.e., are we providing something along the lines of
:
: %traits = ?BLOCK.traits
:
: where %traits is keyed on trait name (FIRST, LAST,
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-02 14:23 (-0700):
multi sub open (
multi sub openuri (
multi sub openpipe (
multi sub openshell (
Starting to look a lot like PHP there.
How about
open ::= File::open
URI::open
Sys::Pipe::open
And put the other aliases in the
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:20:03PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Probably does something like:
:
: ?BLOCK does First; # no-op if it already does First
: ?BLOCK.firstlist.push(block);
Probably shouldn't use up a normal name like First for that. Maybe we
can just reuse the trait name as the
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 12:32:58AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-02 14:23 (-0700):
: multi sub open (
: multi sub openuri (
: multi sub openpipe (
: multi sub openshell (
:
: Starting to look a lot like PHP there.
And I care about that because PHP is
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:22:03PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
.foo# method of $?SELF
.foo# method of $?SELF
$_.foo# method of $_
We could also define them as:
.foo # method on $?SELF
.foo# method on $_
$_.foo # method on $_
The .foo syntax is
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 11:29:49PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
: On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:22:03PM +0200, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
: .foo# method of $?SELF
: .foo# method of $?SELF
: $_.foo# method of $_
:
: We could also define them as:
:
: .foo # method on $?SELF
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:24:34AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: That's true, but the former hasn't been accepted. That's not something
: I considered when I was thinking about that proposal, but I think it's
: a fairly minor issue. We'll ignore labels as we continue to weigh that
: proposal, and
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW multi sub opensocket (
LW Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW Str +$encoding = 'auto',
LW Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO;
and how will that support async (non-blocking) connects? or listen
All~
On 5/2/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW multi sub opensocket (
LW Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW Str +$encoding = 'auto',
LW Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO;
and how
MF == Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MF All~
MF On 5/2/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW multi sub opensocket (
LW Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW Str +$encoding = 'auto',
LW Str [EMAIL PROTECTED]) returns IO;
and how
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
Let's move this away from simple types like Str and Int for a moment.
If you consider them simple...
When compared to
arbitrary-class-that-was-defined-by-
arbitrary-programmer-of-
David Storrs writes:
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 06:49:10PM +0200, Thomas Sandla wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
class Tree {
method bark() { die Cannot instantiate a Tree--it is abstract! }
}
class Birch {
method bark() { return White, papery }
}
class Oak {
method
All~
On 5/3/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MF == Matt Fowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MF All~
MF On 5/2/05, Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW multi sub opensocket (
LW Str +$mode = 'rw',
LW Str +$encoding =
30 matches
Mail list logo
