I don't understand why you think you need the eval here?
--
Mark Biggar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> There is syntax to define trait and properties
> but is there an API?
>
> my $b = eval '$a but true'; # setting a true property
> # API to do it without an eval?
>
[»+^=«] reminds me of a P5 regex that has a comment saying "This is
black magic. Don't touch!". --That's-- my complaint.
Indeed. There's a time and a place for that sort of black magic, and
it's usually about once per 5,000 lines of code, and so deep and well
wrapped in comments and unit tests th
Autrijus Tang wrote:
Juerd informed me today that .method should still means $_.method.
However, for the OO modules we're writing, there still needs to be a way
to invoke methods on the current invocant, when the invocant name has
been omitted from the method() declaration.
Currently Pugs has:
The obvious way to do it is to declare the invocant.
Wasn't one of the original headline features for Perl 6 not having to do
that any more for basic normal code? Or at least from a couple of damian
talks it was one of the things that practically _everybody_ wanted.
On the plus side, with explic
On 5/14/05, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't mean to be disrespectful, but what was whoever suggested ^
> thinking?
Well I suggested backtick in the same role *duck*.
> For starters, about the only combination harder to hit with on
> spanned hand might be ctrl-F5.
I've remapped
Luke wrote:
> If the alternatives are:
>
> * declare $self, use $self.method, and .method for calling on $_
> * use .method, and use $_.method for calling on $_
>
> I'd say the former has no case.
I, for one, am not nearly so certain of that.
Our original rationale for that choice was not c
Firstly, thanks for writing the message out so clearly that it cannot be
misunderstood.
Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:06 (+1000):
> .{width} //= 80;
> .{height}//= 24;
> .{gutter}//= 4;
> .{justification} //= 'left';
> .{availa
Adam Kennedy wrote:
And reduction? I write 25,000+ lines of
Perl a year, and if you are talking about something like
List::Util::reduce, I think I've used it maybe twice?
Which proves what? That you don't (yet) write the sort of code that benefits
from reductions? That you don't (yet) think in t
Autrijus Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What does unboxed values return for their "id", though?
> 3 =:= 3; # always true?
> 3.id ~~ 3.id; # ditto?
Maybe true or not, that's highly implementation dependent. I'd not touch
these internals:
$ python
Python 2.4 [...]
>>> id(2) ==
On 14/05/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are a few of the things I'll be using reductions for in Perl 6...
>
> 1. To add things up:
>
> $sum = [+] @amounts;
>
> 2. To calculate the probability that I'll need to use a reduction today:
>
> $fi
Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:56 (+1000):
>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
>$propped = [but] $value, @properties;
With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <== can solve this?
Juerd
--
http://convol
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:56 (+1000):
>>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
>>$propped = [but] $value, @properties;
>
> With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
> are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:56:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> 3. To drill down a hierarchical data structure, following the path
>specified by a list of keys:
>
>$leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
I think this one needs to be written as:
$leaf_value = [.{}] \%ha
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:56:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> 8. To verify the monotonicity of a sequence:
>
>$is_monotonic = [<] @numbers;
Hey. Does this mean that the [] metaoperator folds with the
associativity of the operator inside it?
That is, if the operator inside is
Eirik Berg Hanssen skribis 2005-05-14 16:22 (+0200):
> > With the precedence of [op] being that of a normal list op, the above
> > are a problem. Perhaps ; or multiple <== can solve this?
> I suppose the first must just make sure not to flatten the %hash:
> $leaf_value = [.{}] \%hash, @keys; # %h
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Here are a few of the things I'll be using reductions for in Perl 6...
DC> 3. To drill down a hierarchical data structure, following the path
DC> specified by a list of keys:
DC> $leaf_value = [.{}] %has
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-14 9:49 (-0500):
> Then surely $leaf = [.{}] %hash, $k1, $k2, $k3
> is the same as$leaf = %hash .{} $k1 .{} $k2 .{} $k3
Then perhaps the easy way out is to make .{} $key and .[] $index valid
syntax.
Or perhaps [] can play the role of
Adam Kennedy kirjoitti:
[»+^=«] reminds me of a P5 regex that has a comment saying "This is
black magic. Don't touch!". --That's-- my complaint.
I look at...
>>but the basic operator there is just ^, with a + modifier to indicate
>>numeric XOR, = to indicate an assignment operator, »« to indicate
Markus Laire skribis 2005-05-14 18:07 (+0300):
> [>>+^=<<] (@a, @b, @c)
These arrays flatten first (otherwise [+] @foo could never calculate the
sum of the elements), so imagine that you have
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
ht
Juerd skribis 2005-05-14 17:23 (+0200):
> Markus Laire skribis 2005-05-14 18:07 (+0300):
> > [>>+^=<<] (@a, @b, @c)
> These arrays flatten first (otherwise [+] @foo could never calculate the
> sum of the elements), so imagine that you have
$foo, $bar, $baz, $quux, $xyzzy
to let >>+^=<< op
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:53:38PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:56:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
: > 8. To verify the monotonicity of a sequence:
: >
: >$is_monotonic = [<] @numbers;
:
: Hey. Does this mean that the [] metaoperator folds with the
:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 02:57:53PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: If we want some interoperbility with Python dicts, hashing will not be
: done on ids but on the hash function of the type.
Which Perl could default to id.
Larry
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 02:17:38PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Firstly, thanks for writing the message out so clearly that it cannot be
: misunderstood.
:
: Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-14 22:06 (+1000):
: > .{width} //= 80;
: > .{height}//= 24;
: > .{gutter}
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 04:22:44PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
: >The obvious way to do it is to declare the invocant.
:
: Wasn't one of the original headline features for Perl 6 not having to do
: that any more for basic normal code? Or at least from a couple of damian
: talks it was one of the
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-05-14 9:49 (-0500):
> > Then surely $leaf = [.{}] %hash, $k1, $k2, $k3
> > is the same as $leaf = %hash .{} $k1 .{} $k2 .{} $k3
>
> Then perhaps the easy way out is to make .{} $key and
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 8:29 (-0700):
> : say [x];
> : Is it a repeating metaoperator on an empty list, or a single-element
> : array reference that contains the return value of calling &x()?
> Always the first. [x] doesn't have to do lookahead.
Does this mean that [x] is just an inter
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:55:43AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: But perhaps the reduce operator is some of that sufficiently advanced
: technology that "knows" how the operator it wraps is slotted and does
: something appropriate.
Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants,
We have a bit of a problem with negative operators applied to junctions,
as illustrated recently on PerlMonks. To wit, when a native English
speaker writes
if $a != 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
they really mean one of:
if not $a == 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
if $a == none(1, 2, 3) {...}
or, expressed in
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 09:20:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 10:55:43AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> : But perhaps the reduce operator is some of that sufficiently advanced
> : technology that "knows" how the operator it wraps is slotted and does
> : something approp
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
> Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some such.
The problem is that we already have @foo[] meaning the same as @foo, and
an always allowed . that also allows you to put whitespace around it.
This means that %foo.{}.$kv should
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 04:21:25PM +0200, "TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)" wrote:
: And I hope that it is not possible to accidentially
: mess up the internals of the compiler because code
: in a BEGIN hits compiler data.
Whereas I hope that it *is* possible to intentionally
mess up the internals of the com
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
: > Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some such.
:
: The problem is that we already have @foo[] meaning the same as @foo, and
: an always allowed . that also allows you
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 09:31:29AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I don't think we can allow this situation to stand. Either we have
> to make != and !~ and ne transform themselves via "not raising", or
> we have to disallow negative comparisons on junctions entirely.
I'm of the opinion that disallow
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
: > Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some such.
:
: The problem is that we already have @foo[] meaning the same as @foo, and
: an always allowed . th
Larry Wall wrote:
We have a bit of a problem with negative operators applied to junctions,
as illustrated recently on PerlMonks. To wit, when a native English
speaker writes
if $a != 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
they really mean one of:
if not $a == 1 | 2 | 3 {...}
if $a == none(1, 2, 3) {...}
or, e
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 06:41:35PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: >: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:20 (-0700):
: >: > Possibly. Or we just define infix .{}. and .[]. variants, or some
: >such.
: >:
: >: The problem is
Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Unless, of course, there is some subtle difference between a 3-d hash
: and a hash of hashes of hashes that invalidates this.
No difference, I hope. The multidimensional notation is meant
to extend to HoH and AoA tran
On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:36:22PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
: >
: >: Unless, of course, there is some subtle difference between a 3-d hash
: >: and a hash of hashes of hashes that invalidates this.
: >
: >No differ
On 5/14/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 01:36:22PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> : Larry Wall wrote:
> :
> : >On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 12:51:32PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> : >
> : >: Unless, of course, there is some subtle difference between a 3-d hash
> : >: and a ha
Rob Kinyon wrote:
So, does this mean that I can do something like:
@a = [ 1 .. 4 ];
$x = @a{2};
and have $x == 3? If so, is there any reason (other than clarity) to
use the @a[] notation? The @ already indicates you have an array vs.
the % which indicates hash. Is there a reason to have the subsc
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 01:07:20PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 11:54:47AM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> : $r1 = rx / abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn :: op /;
> : $r2 = rx / abc ::: def | ghi ::: jkl | mn ::: op /;
> : $r3 = rx / [ abc :: def | ghi :: jkl | mn ::
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. To drill down a hierarchical data structure, following the path
> specified by a list of keys:
>
> $leaf_value = [.{}] %hash, @keys;
When I saw this, the following happened.
*pause for a second*
"Wow."
*a few more seconds*
"H
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [an extremely well-thought-out explanation]
Thank you, Dr. Conway. That was very enlightening, and I think I
agree with all of it.
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You guys are all ignoring that I said it could be set via pragma or macro.
> If yo
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-14 9:45 (-0700):
> : OTOH, reduce probably just needs to be smart enough to understand
> : postcircumfix. Perhaps whitespace helps, [{ }], in parallel with
> : &postcircumfix:<{ }>, to avoid a conflict with an infix {}.
> Erm, I don't like tokens with spaces in the middl
Larry wrote:
I don't think we can allow this situation to stand. Either we have
to make != and !~ and ne transform themselves via "not raising", or
we have to disallow negative comparisons on junctions entirely.
Opinions?
Making them DWIM here would be a mistake, since the dwimmery would disappear
On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 16:22 +0200, Eirik Berg Hanssen wrote:
> I suppose the first must just make sure not to flatten the %hash:
>
> $leaf_value = [.{}] \%hash, @keys; # %hash .{$key1} . {$key2} ...
Side point on the whole topic: I just LOVE \ as an explosive list-
context flattening preventer
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like the decision about which side of the road cars should drive on,
it really doesn't matter *which* choice is taken, as long as
*something* is decided.
The only thing is, there already is a decided way to do it so far as I can
see...
I've s
Larry wrote:
Actually, I think Damian's original formulation is sufficiently clear.
Me too! ;-)
I think that a standard [.] abbreviation for all
postcircumfix operators within [op] reductions would be a useful bit of dwimmery.
Damian
Jonathan Worthington wrote:
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like the decision about which side of the road cars should drive on,
it really doesn't matter *which* choice is taken, as long as
*something* is decided.
The only thing is, there already is a decided way to do it so f
Rod Adams skribis 2005-05-14 19:21 (-0500):
> $?SELF, and nothing else by default.
Wrong because it's inconsistent. Nothing else defaults to $?SELF.
> $_ bound to $?SELF at start of method.
Current spec.
> o.
> O.
> this.
> self.
> me.
Not special syntax, meaning you can no longer use these id
Juerd wrote:
Rod Adams skribis 2005-05-14 19:21 (-0500):
o.
O.
this.
self.
me.
Not special syntax, meaning you can no longer use these identifiers for
your own class. Bad style to use single-letter identifiers, but we know
what trouble $a and $b in Perl 5 cause, and the B:: namespace.
I bel
On 5/14/05, Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Worthington wrote:
>
> > "Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Like the decision about which side of the road cars should drive on,
> >> it really doesn't matter *which* choice is taken, as long as
> >> *something
On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 22:06 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>
> > If the alternatives are:
> >
> > * declare $self, use $self.method, and .method for calling on $_
> > * use .method, and use $_.method for calling on $_
> >
> > I'd say the former has no case.
>
> I, for one
On 5/15/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does [EMAIL PROTECTED] know the difference between &postcircumfix:
> and
> &postcircumfix:?
Perhaps it checks how many different variations are actually
defined--if it finds only one, it can DWIM, and if it finds more than
one it can barf with an
54 matches
Mail list logo
