On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:34:57PM -0400, Kurt wrote:
On 6/18/05, Juerd wrote:
Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said they like it. I personally find ./method prettier and easier to
type than any of the alternatives.
I don't like it because I think
What does this have to do with perl6-internals? F-up to p6l.
Matthew Zimmerman skribis 2005-06-21 11:27 (-0400):
$self-_fraction * $self-concentration +
$s2-_fraction * $s2-concentration
You can still write it like that, if you declare a
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2005-06-21 10:00 (-0500):
I expect that soon after perl6 is released (heck, maybe before it's
released) we'll get tools that will translate perl6 to perl6 while
performing some syntactic manipulation. For instance, it could
explicitize code (replacing ./method with
Juerd wrote:
What does this have to do with perl6-internals? F-up to p6l.
Sorry! Typing faster than my brain is working. Resent to the right list.
If I have a complicated mathematical expression
If you have anything that is complicated, a verbose version should
always be considered, if
[Sorry, sent this to the wrong list by mistake.]
Matthew Zimmerman wrote:
Juerd wrote:
Kurt skribis 2005-06-20 19:46 (-0400):
On 6/20/05, Juerd wrote:
Or you can just get your self with a simple (module that does)
macro self () { '$?SELF' }
And you could do the same for `./`.
On 6/18/05, Juerd wrote:
Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said they like it. I personally find ./method prettier and easier to
type than any of the alternatives.
I don't like it because I think method calls should look like method calls,
and the slash
Kurt skribis 2005-06-20 19:34 (-0400):
However, if it remains official, I expect I'll simply be naming my
invocants, as chromatic has suggested.
Or you can just get your self with a simple (module that does)
macro self () { '$?SELF' }
Juerd
--
On 6/20/05, Juerd wrote:
Or you can just get your self with a simple (module that does)
macro self () { '$?SELF' }
And you could do the same for `./`.
Kurt
Kurt skribis 2005-06-20 19:46 (-0400):
On 6/20/05, Juerd wrote:
Or you can just get your self with a simple (module that does)
macro self () { '$?SELF' }
And you could do the same for `./`.
Certainly.
However, there has proven to be much demand for something like ./method,
and in such
John Siracusa wrote:
On 6/18/05 8:28 PM, Juerd wrote:
The unix shell and things resembling it will still be in use much fifteen
years after today, Perl 5 will not.
Ooo, a bold prediction :)
Heh, it is indeed. And it means given the 16,000,000 lines of Perl in
CPAN, we only have to keep
On Jun 18, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
chromatic wrote:
I find it ugly enough that I plan to name my invocants explicitly.
...which should be construed as a *feature* of the current syntax. ;-)
Damian
In that case, why do we have this feature?
Seriously. Are default
David Storrs skribis 2005-06-19 13:45 (-0400):
Seriously. Are default invocants really such a good idea?
Yes, as long as the default is $_.
./method doesn't use a default invocant. It calls method on the current
invocant, which happens to be available as $?SELF: that doesn't mean it
defaults
The reason we ended up at ./method was simply because it was the best
suggestion anyone had.
Compared to the previous suggestions it was way ahead.
It's other advantage is that (except for on nordic keyboards) dot and
slash are generally right next to each other, so the expense of using it
On 6/18/05 12:23 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
The reason we ended up at ./method was simply because it was the best
suggestion anyone had.
That's what I'm trying to remedy :)
It's other advantage is that (except for on nordic keyboards) dot and
slash are generally right next to each other, so the
At 7:52 AM -0400 6/18/05, John Siracusa wrote:
That actually looks more private to me. Let's line 'em up again:
PUBLIC PRIVATE
-- --
./method() .:method()
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .:method()
.method() .:method()
.:method() .method()
.:method()
Darren Duncan skribis 2005-06-18 11:40 (-0700):
item invocation syntax was exactly the same but with the
consideration that all private items have a ':' as the first
character in their otherwise alphanumeric names (the ':' looks like
part of an operator but it isn't).
Except for
On 6/18/05 2:40 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
As I recall, it was decided for a broad scope that public and private
item invocation syntax was exactly the same but with the
consideration that all private items have a ':' as the first
character in their otherwise alphanumeric names (the ':' looks
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 19:55 (-0400):
./method() ./:method()
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .@:method()
.method() .:method()
.-method() .-:method()
[...]
./method() ./:method() # worst
Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said
On 6/18/05 7:54 PM, Juerd wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .@:method()
In Perl, @ has a VERY strong association with arrays, so except for
specialised frameworks, I recommend against using it for other purposes.
The / character has very strong associations in nearly every programming
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:16 (-0400):
On 6/18/05 7:54 PM, Juerd wrote:
In Perl, @ has a VERY strong association with arrays, so except for
specialised frameworks, I recommend against using it for other purposes.
The / character has very strong associations in nearly every
On 6/18/05 8:11 PM, Juerd wrote:
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 19:55 (-0400):
./method() ./:method()
[EMAIL PROTECTED]() .@:method()
.method() .:method()
.-method() .-:method()
[...]
./method() ./:method() # worst
Why exactly is the slash not
On 6/18/05 8:28 PM, Juerd wrote:
The unix shell and things resembling it will still be in use much fifteen
years after today, Perl 5 will not.
Ooo, a bold prediction :)
-John
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:35 (-0400):
On 6/18/05 8:28 PM, Juerd wrote:
The unix shell and things resembling it will still be in use much fifteen
years after today, Perl 5 will not.
Ooo, a bold prediction :)
Do you really think so? I think that there is no way that Perl 5 can
John Siracusa skribis 2005-06-18 20:33 (-0400):
I literally didn't even consider that it could be some sort of new
syntax--and that's saying a lot considering I was reading p6l.
You missed a 33 message thread that was referred to many times. Such
things happen, I am surprised by new inventions
On Sun, 2005-06-19 at 02:11 +0200, Juerd wrote:
Why exactly is the slash not acceptable for you? Almost everyone has
said they like it.
I find it ugly enough that I plan to name my invocants explicitly.
-- c
On 6/18/05 8:55 PM, Juerd wrote:
I'm just hoping there's an alternative that everyone will like better
As long as I'm part of everyone, that won't happen. I've listed
numerous possibilities for myself, and found none that I liked better
than ./method. I don't think you can come up with a
chromatic wrote:
I find it ugly enough that I plan to name my invocants explicitly.
...which should be construed as a *feature* of the current syntax. ;-)
Damian
At 1:54 AM +0200 6/19/05, Juerd wrote:
Except for attributes, which play a different game: the colon comes
*instead* of the dot as the twigil, while the accessor method gets : in
front of its name. If I recall correctly, the syntax is very misleading
in that it is NOT part of the name.
I would
(Yes, the subject line is a ps joke...it's late...well, late for a new
parent, anyway.)
On 6/17/05 6:18 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
John Siracusa wrote:
(BTW, I'm not sure where those ./ thingies came from, but it's what GMail
showed in your message. I'm assuming it should just be .)
No.
Oops, part of Diamian's quoted text got trimmed accidentally in my last
post. It should have looked like this:
On 6/17/05 10:42 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
[...] I'm not, however, buying Damian's argument here:
On 2005-05-15 20:33:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) said:
This missing
On Jun 17, 2005, at 10:42 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
But the truth is that /
really does look file-path-y to me, and just plain old ugly. I
think at
least two other people had similar reactions (Martin Kuehl and Carl
Franks).
David Storrs, reporting to show solidarity, sir(acusa)!
Maybe
On 6/17/05 10:56 PM, David Storrs wrote:
I'm not fond of .:: because I don't think it's sufficiently visually
distinct from .:.
Hm, let's look at it:
method total(...)
{
.::sanity_check();
return .:value_one() + .:value_two();
}
Maybe lined up?
32 matches
Mail list logo
