DB == Daniel Brockman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DB You may be right about this. I would be happy if the
DB standard distribution came with a package that enabled the
DB hyphenated identifiers syntax in the lexical block:
DBuse hyphenated_identifiers;
DB Hopefully the name of
Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
this idea would need to be worked out in much greater detail. there are
many different identifiers in perl. would all of them be subject to this
change? how would a global work if some other module refered to it using
underscores but your module used
No sane person would put their braces in different places in
different parts of their code, so why don't we just say,
from now on, you must use brace style X?
Have you never seen code that's been worked on by several people with
differing tastes in brace positioning and no coding standard? Have
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Daniel Brockman wrote:
No offense to whoever made that suggestion, but I think there are far
more people out there with a developed taste for hyphenated
identifiers than there are people with a thing for using backticks as
subscript operators.
Do you see the difference?
Jan,
No offense either, but if you are suggesting that
@a[$i-1] + @a[$i+1]
should be interpreted as
@a[$i_1] + @a[$i+1]
then I think it is pretty obvious why this is a really bad idea.
That's a very good example. I think I'm going to have to
change my mind and agree that it
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:56:27AM +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
: That problem is not specific to this feature. For any package
: that changes the syntax, you can ask what about eval?
:
: So... what *about* eval? :-)
Always parses with the parser in effect at that point, the same one you'd
get
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Complex numbers come in two representations: rectilinear coordinates
and polar coordinates:
I think there's also the Riemanian two angle form of the complex
number sphere with r = 0.5 around (0,0,0.5) touching the plane at
the origin (0,0) and reaching up to
In http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=509413 (in response to
http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=509256), Rob Kinyon wrote that in his
understanding of Perl 6 Roles, anything a role can do the class doing
the role should also be able to do.
Is this correct? I'm getting bitten with Class::Trait because some
Hi all,
I think that grep should be renamed to something English and more, well,
semantic. 'Filter' comes to mind as a suggestion. I realise there's a
lot of cultural background (from Unix and Perl 5) that favours 'grep',
but I think it's more important to name the language elements
consistently
Drat, thought I was sending this to the list:
Begin forwarded message:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 8:31 PM, Ilmari Vacklin wrote:
Hi all,
I think that grep should be renamed to something English and more,
well,
semantic. 'Filter' comes to mind as a suggestion. I realise there's a
lot of
Greetings to everyone. I'm wondering about the = operator, which
still autoquotes its first arguement if it's bare, a la barewords.
Synopsis 1 says:
But = still autoquotes any bare identifier to its immediate left
(horizontal whitespace allowed but not comments). The identifier is
not subject to
On 11/17/05, Joshua Choi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what does that mean for ='s signature? What type would be its
first parameter? Would you call it infix:{'='}:(Bareword | Any,
Any) or something like that? And in any case, would you be able to
use this autoquoting in or as a sub, operator,
12 matches
Mail list logo
