Juerd wrote:
I think separating stringification and interpolation leads to
unpredictability, and is a very bad thing.
I disagree. I think it's likely that people will think of ~$val and +$val the
same way (i.e. as "coerce the value"), but that they will think of "$val"
quite differently (i.e
Damian Conway skribis 2005-09-22 23:04 (+1000):
> I disagree. I think it's likely that people will think of ~$val and +$val
> the same way (i.e. as "coerce the value"), but that they will think of
> "$val" quite differently (i.e. as "interpolate a useful string
> representation of the entire val
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:59:32AM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
> Well said! I completely agree that string interpolation should be
> handled exactly the same as stringification. I would like C< ("foo is
> $foo of course") eq ("foo is " ~ $foo ~ " of course") > at all times.
Yes.
S03 states:
Un
I'm not sure we've reached consensus here, so I will try to summarize
what everyone said so far in order to clear my own head a bit. :)
Sorry in advance if i horribly misrepresent anyone's opinions.
Luke: Thinks the "_" syntax is no joke, since every language with
pattern matching abilities has it
HaloO Juerd,
you wrote:
Damian Conway skribis 2005-09-22 23:04 (+1000):
I disagree. I think it's likely that people will think of ~$val and +$val
the same way (i.e. as "coerce the value"), but that they will think of
"$val" quite differently (i.e. as "interpolate a useful string
representati
TSa skribis 2005-09-23 15:42 (+0200):
> 1) the circumfix operator " " has an arity >= 1
I think it's parsed, not having specific arity.
> We have: "foo" ~ $bar
> I see: a juxtaposition of two operators and an item,
> all three separated by whitespace
I can only hope you mean two
HaloO Carl,
you wrote:
TSa: Prefers to rely on lazy evaluation, and says both tounge-in-cheek
and philosophically that if I don't want to care about some elements,
I should do so, and let Perl6 optimize. Proposes several ways of not
giving a name to a variable.
This hits home. And I did at no
On 2005-09-23 06:08, "Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my opinion, making the string value in interpolation different from
> the value in Str context is madness.
Hear, hear! I agree 100%. This is another place where we should move the
Rubyometer down rather than up, I think (to_s vs. to_st
Halo,
someone has switched off my echo ;)
Juerd wrote:
TSa skribis 2005-09-23 15:42 (+0200):
1) the circumfix operator " " has an arity >= 1
I think it's parsed, not having specific arity.
Of course it's parsed, how else should it reach the semantic analyzer?
And I don't consider (arity
TSa skribis 2005-09-23 19:11 (+0200):
> >> We have: "foo" ~ $bar
> >> I see: a juxtaposition of two operators and an item,
> >>all three separated by whitespace
> >I can only hope you mean two items and one operator.
> So, at last there is hope somewhere. But I fear I'm hopelessly
> drowne
10 matches
Mail list logo
