At 12:38 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
The operative word in that last sentence is "Currently"...
The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
suppor
rays, have
multi-dimensional arrays, and do some rather odd slicing operations that
give values still linked to the original matrices.
Has anyone asked for complex number support yet?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 12:42 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 12:28 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
But scalars are not compact.
Since scalars are singular things, how would you compact them anyway?
If I say $a = ones(float,10,10) in PDL then each element
this in perl 5, and will undoubtedly be able
to do it in perl 6, with source filters. (If Damian can write perl that
looks like Latin or Klingon, then python ought to be simple... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
the type being assigned to it. (Or so is my understanding of what Larry
wants for 'shortcut types' like int, float, or str)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
At 12:54 PM 8/11/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Nope. The code that accessses the array needs to support it. Different
DS animal entirely. The ops don't actually need to know.
but still that is overhead code for all arrays an
"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
, you mean being able to override the + function for a variable,
complete with method dispatch depending on the types of the variables on
both sides of the +?
Yup ;)
Dan
--it's like this---
Dan Sugalski
At 06:48 AM 11/9/2001 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 04:21 PM 11/8/2001 -0800, John Rudd wrote:
So, does this mean my other heart's desire of operator overloading might
be coming forth? (I know, I know, here I am, a smalltalker, asking for
operator
happening.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
on picking up the Unicode spec over lunch (didn't want to throw my
back out... ;))
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 06:59 PM 8/1/00 +0100, Hildo Biersma wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'd also like to see lexicals addressed by name through some sort of symbol
table-ish thing. Maybe:
$PAD{my_var}[-1]
would give a ref to the lexical my_var that exists one level of scope out
from the current
never, etc, etc.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
::fred does.
Well, in perl 5 it doesn't, but that doesn't say anything about perl 6... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
the variables fend for
themseles.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
know where a few folks are). That pretty much covers
the whole day...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
im FrenkelNonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski
checking is disabled in a no taint block. Whether we still set the
taint status on a scalar could depend on the -T switch, so data would still
be tainted in a no taint block.
Dan
--"it's like this"--
internals for this. Figure out whether its a good or bad
thing based on the language merits, not the internals issues.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samu
rein.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy
to change or extend it
much later.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
At 05:16 PM 8/4/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Indirect calls might not be a problem, depending on how much flow analysis
we can do in the optimizer. While that won't be much in the
on-the-fly-compile version (a 10s runtime with a 50s compile time's
At 01:30 AM 8/5/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 12:24:01PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:31 PM 8/4/00 +0200, dLux wrote:
My suggestion is: declare "eval $scalar" as a bad guy.
It's not just string eval. It's also do FILE and require.
Which you need
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
of it isn't needed
3) C's preprocessor has a number of unpleasant flaws
4) Not everyone has a C preprocessor around to use
If we're going to do it, it should be in perl and perlish.
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
correctly without actually writing the code that
uses it...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
this looks, it has some pretty significant ramifications
for the internals. What, for example, should happen if you deep-copy a DBI
object attached to an Oracle database?
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
it was.)
Yeah, I can see that. We're going to need a mechanism to hoist things to
outer scope levels internally (for when we return objects from subs) so it
might be worth generalizing things.
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 01:21 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Fre
f the sort.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
won't always be passing objects around, I suppose.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
not.
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS I think I'd prefer to leave untainting to regexes.
DS What I was thinking of was something along the lines of a lexically
scoped
DS pragma--"use taint"/"no taint". (We could do this by sticking in an
opcode
DS to
like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
example, did a "$foo[2] = 'bar'" I don't
see any reason not to make $foo[2] have a value of 0. (With a warning
emitted by -w, of course)
Dan
------"it's like this"-
ent-based perl runtime, the select loop would be hidden
from the programmer. All I/O calls would be non-blocking and context
switching.
I meant select the perl construct, not select the low-level construct.
Dan
------
At 12:35 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS The language semantics of tie strongly impact the internals. tie() is
DS basically a declaration that the rules are completely different (and
DS unknown at compile time) for the tie
out. That's where the
current format format (so to speak) runs you into trouble.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
question, given that's almost a year off.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
be perfectly
happy to do so, though, if the resulting code is frozen to disk so I didn't
pay it the next time.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
to the
non-op functions, it means they don't have to worry about writing code to
do localtime however we do it, they can just call our function.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
rform well.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
when putting together the RFC for it, if someone even does.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:27 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS At 10:07 AM 8/7/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 12:53 PM 8/7/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
There are a wide range of tricky problems associated with deep copy
and
deep
to store the record separator (or
a pointer to the filehandle holding the record separator)?
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
: 2
Status: Developing
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 48
Is this an update to the original RFC 48 with a new title? Or is it a new
RFC mis-numbered?
Dan
--"it's like this"-----
At 02:29 PM 8/8/00 -0400, Michael Mathews wrote:
Dan Sugalski said:
Which brings up the questions:
* What about scalars that didn't come from filehandles?
* Should the chomp function use the filehandle's current separator, or the
one in effect when it was read?
* Do we even want
t
"most CS educated folks" ought to know (a category a number of us don't
necessarily fall into), it's handy to know where to look to brush up on the
details of the thing in question.
Dan
--"it's like th
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Michael Mathews wrote:
Ted Ashton said:
Thus it was written in the epistle of Uri Guttman,
how do you tell the above two apart? by array do you mean only an array
variable? then you can't chomp a list of scalar values or multiple
arrays, etc.
this needs
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Damian Conway wrote:
If you take this, I won't be able to port the forthcoming Klingon.pm
module to Perl 6!!!
And this would be a bad thing how, exactly? :)
I SHOULD KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND
But, but... I'm sitting! :-P
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Mike Pastore wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
If you feel the need, it should be possible to let you do this, or at
least a part of it for one or three ops, with a module. I think it might
be better to wait until the plain way's in and then embellish
the first dev release--perl 6.-1.0?) but could get added in as modules and
make it into perl 6.2.0 or something)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
where two packages in the same file use different versions of module C and
get them?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 11:11 AM 8/9/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Does that mean, then, that when module A does a "$C::bar = 1" it affects a
: different package namespace than module B doing a "$C::bar = 2"?
Presumably.
H. That brings up some issues of ambiguity
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
" to actually make something happen...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
uot;cat", but "10.0"ne"10". Both are arguably
wrong--dogs aren't cats, but 10.0 really is 10...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
couch potatoes")
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
igEndian, Intel (x86) is LittleEndian. TIFF marks the files with either
"MM" or "II".
Yep, except for the PowerPC and 88k chips, which can do either, or the
i860, which was BigEndian IIRC...
Dan
------"it
.
This, FWIW, is because the PDP-11 (as opposed to all the other PDP
families) was a 16-bit machine, so this is actually two words each in
little-endian storage...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
something like:
print "$kitty\n";
Chomp removes one or more line separators from the end.
Chomp only removes one instance of the record separator from the end.
Dan
--"it's like this"----
At 11:13 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:46:32 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * @baz;
Given that the default action of the multiply routine for an array in
non-scalar context would be to die, allowing user-overrides of the
functions would probably
At 09:16 PM 8/9/00 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Nathan Torkington wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
Which sort of argues for localtime in a numeric scalar context to return
epoch seconds, in a string scalar context to return a time string,
and in a
plain scalar context a hashref
At 01:50 PM 8/9/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 11:11 AM 8/9/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Dan Sugalski writes:
: : Does that mean, then, that when module A does a "$C::bar = 1" it
affects a
: : different package namespace than module B doing a &q
At 08:18 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 06:16 PM 8/9/00 +, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As an engineer I would really like to know when you are going to
run out of precision in double
At 10:33 PM 8/9/00 +, David L. Nicol wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Both the l and rvalues will need to participate.
Sorry. Quick review of how C++ does it indicates that
selecting an assignment operator from the lvalue's methods
makes sense.
Sure, and using the rvalue makes sense too
not) They change the behaviour of the generated code, yes, but not the
lexing/parsing/whatever of the perl source.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
equivalent of magic, which should be even cheaper.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 05:46 PM 8/10/00 +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:28:05PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
No, it wouldn't, really. We could make "use fatal;" scoped, so that the
quit op (or whatever it is) only jumps through all its hoops if the
pragma's in effect. If its not,
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Decklin Foster wrote:
Syloke Soong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
my $varname type;
The syntax
my $varname : constant; # pun not intended :)
Was brought up earlier (but probably not before this RFC was written).
Perhaps something similar could be used for
At 02:29 PM 8/11/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant = new Dog;
Yes. But what about types and attributes within complex types
of that.
"JH" == Jeremy Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JH Dan Sugalski wrote:
The syntax is actually:
my type $varname;
This is in perl 5.6.0. Modifiers go as attributes after the colon:
my Dog $spot : constant = new Dog;
JH Yes. But what about types and attributes within com
? (And which should we avoid, lazy evals or functional programming?)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have t
t it could keep some of the more sublte
"whoops"es from happening.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Damian Conway wrote:
Perl used to use $pkg'var instead of the modern $pkg::var. This is still
in Perl 5. It's gotta go. (At least, it should.)
N!
If you take this, I won't be able to port the forthcoming Klingon.pm
module to Perl 6!!!
And this
At 09:38 PM 8/4/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
$foo = 12;
$bar = something();
$bar = $foo;
could work out to:
$foo = $bar = 12;
something();
If $foo is a lexical variable and it hasn't been aliased then
you might be able to do that optimization
to
be designed in.
I'm working on it.
:) I promised Kirrily that I'd race you in the RFC count...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL
At 12:48 PM 8/13/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
I don't mind if someone overrides the vtable functions for a variable of a
built-in type--a standard declaration of:
my $foo;
is really shorthand for:
my generic_scalar $foo;
more or less
At 05:39 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:41:22 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * 12;
@foo = map { $_ * 12 } @bar;
I don't see the need for a new notation.
Well, compactness for one. With a scalar on one side it's less odd (it was
a bad
At 12:04 AM 8/7/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 01:38:13 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Even in perl5 an XS module can do _anything at all_.
It can't access data the lexer's already tossed out. That's where the
current format format (so to speak) runs you into trouble.
Only
At 12:23 PM 8/12/00 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Yup. It's an issue for things that implement any non-standard semantics for
: existing ops, especially if those ops are overridden at runtime so the
: optimizer doesn't know. It's one thing to mess with tied variables, its
ience from languages that
already do it.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
representation settles down first. You may find a lot of this isn't
actually necessary.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
) to build associative arrays from arrays, than vice versa.
It's silly to throw either of them out. Perl might be many things, but a
reductionist language it ain't...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
At 05:53 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Tossing the worthless and confusing ones is good. Tossung the useless
and distinguishing ones is bad.
Uh, which ones did you have in mind, by "useless and distinguishing"? ;-)
D'oh! (or is that now D::oh?
At 06:04 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Generality good.
For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality bad.
Specificity and specialization good. People aren't generalists. They're a
collection of specialists. The distinction is important
to be the driving force behind a lot of
the stuff in perl...)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
At 11:46 PM 8/15/00 -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] whispered:
| Doesn't it make more sense to get rid of arrays and just use hashes?
|
| I guess it depends on what you think makes sense; but it seems to me
| that an array
At 11:09 AM 8/16/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Numbers and strings really aren't different things, at least not as far as
people are concerned. They are for machines, but computer languages
ultimately aren't for machines, they're for people.
I guess I can't fault you
At 09:49 PM 8/16/00 +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 06:04 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Generality good.
For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality
will still be using 1970 as the epoch in
the year 31,536.
Nah. I'm sure we'll have switched over to Elvis' birthday as base date by
then... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski
-1858 00:00:00.00, for some astronomical
reason IIRC.
It's the Smithsonian Base Date, FWIW. On VMS, though, perl presents all
time in Unix epoch seconds.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
date preceded the
oldest star catalogue in use at SAO, which also avoided having to use
negative time in any of the satellite tracking calculations.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Da
SOME_SOCKET);
Or something like that, at least...
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bear
1 - 100 of 636 matches
Mail list logo
