Re: Curious: - vs .
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote: So why not $object!method(foo, bar); In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on a crowded page, it's similar in appearance to $objectImethod, for instance. $object.method() has a visual separator (although I'd prefer $object-method()). How about borrowing from Objective C? [$object method(foo, bar)]; How do you create an anonymous list now then? Not that I object to borrowing from Objective C you realise. I thought ($one, $two, $three) was an anonymous list. Oops, meant anonymous array. Seriously, I hadn't considered that their may be a problem with the syntax I gave. How would you, under Perl5, interpret the expression I used. To me, it looks like a syntax error. '$object method(foo,bar)' isn't a valid method call, so it can't be a ref to an anonymous list of one value. Hmm... I plead posting late at night. Other than severe dependence on the comma, is there any reason why we couldn't have the following? $foo = [$one]; # array ref $baz = [$obj,funcall() ]; # array ref $quux = [$one,$two,$three]; # array ref $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bat = [$one $two $three]; # syntax error Apart from the fact that we're adding one more meaning to [], one which has no mnemonic relationship with arrays, no reason at all. -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: Curious: - vs .
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bar = method $obj() would be more consistent with perl's current $object = new Class() syntax. -- Bart.
Re: Curious: - vs .
Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bar = method $obj() would be more consistent with perl's current $object = new Class() syntax. Yes, well, some people want to get rid of the indirect object syntax, not require it. I don't use it myself, but my understanding is that $bar = method $obj() is legal right now, and that your second example isn't a special-case but just one example of the general case. -- Bart.
Re: Curious: - vs .
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about borrowing from Objective C? [$object method(foo, bar)]; How do you create an anonymous list now then? Not that I object to borrowing from Objective C you realise. I thought ($one, $two, $three) was an anonymous list. Oops, meant anonymous array. To be overly pedantic I thought [$one, 2, 3] was a ref to an anonymous array... Other than severe dependence on the comma, is there any reason why we couldn't have the following? [snip] Apart from the fact that we're adding one more meaning to [], one which has no mnemonic relationship with arrays, no reason at all. Since it looks like we are going to be getting $object.method() anyway, it doesn't matter much. It was more of a facetious suggestion to begin with -- although that doesn't mean that it wouldn't work, it's just not going to happen, and I know it. Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: Curious: - vs .
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote: the idea of a dereference operator dumbfounds lots of folks. What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a pointer? A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so is the syntax. So you want a method invocation syntax that doesn't remind people of references. OK. But why does it have to be the dot? It is already taken. Sorry. Use an operator that doesn't exist yet in Perl. For example, old style VB used ! to connect objects and their properties: label1!caption = Hi! is the same as label1.caption = Hi! So why not $object!method(foo, bar); -- Bart.
Re: Curious: - vs .
the idea of a dereference operator dumbfounds lots
of folks. What's an object got to do with a reference, much less a
pointer? A p5 object is very confusing to others for this reason, and so
is the syntax.
So you want a method invocation syntax that doesn't remind people of
references. OK. But why does it have to be the dot? It is already taken.
Sorry. Use an operator that doesn't exist yet in Perl. For example, old
style VB used ! to connect objects and their properties:
$object!method(foo, bar);
It doesn't have to be the dot. But the plain fact is that the dot is
generally recognized in this way; why is making Perl syntax more
recognized a bad thing? If what we're after is making Perl better, then
one of the primary improvements should be making objects more readable for
the multi-language programmer. I'm really not against '-', but then
again, I *like* that
an-object-is-a-reference-which-means-I-can-poke-and-prod-it-and-embed-it-etc.
Even so, I recognize that it doesn't make Perl more readable, especially
when glob syntax is used to manipulate the reference table.
A traditionally negating symbol ('!') is the last character I would want
to see. As for VB ;)
Re: Curious: - vs .
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote: So why not $object!method(foo, bar); In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on a crowded page, it's similar in appearance to $objectImethod, for instance. $object.method() has a visual separator (although I'd prefer $object-method()). How about borrowing from Objective C? [$object method(foo, bar)]; How do you create an anonymous list now then? Not that I object to borrowing from Objective C you realise. -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Re: Curious: - vs .
Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote: So why not $object!method(foo, bar); In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on a crowded page, it's similar in appearance to $objectImethod, for instance. $object.method() has a visual separator (although I'd prefer $object-method()). How about borrowing from Objective C? [$object method(foo, bar)]; How do you create an anonymous list now then? Not that I object to borrowing from Objective C you realise. I thought ($one, $two, $three) was an anonymous list. Seriously, I hadn't considered that their may be a problem with the syntax I gave. How would you, under Perl5, interpret the expression I used. To me, it looks like a syntax error. '$object method(foo,bar)' isn't a valid method call, so it can't be a ref to an anonymous list of one value. Other than severe dependence on the comma, is there any reason why we couldn't have the following? $foo = [$one]; # array ref $baz = [$obj,funcall() ]; # array ref $quux = [$one,$two,$three]; # array ref $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bat = [$one $two $three]; # syntax error -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
RE: Curious: - vs .
$foo = [$one, $two, $three]; # creates an anonymous list. $foo = [$object method(foo, bar)]; This would interpret as $foo[0] == $object, etc... Ilya -Original Message- From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:20 PM To: Piers Cawley Cc: Bart Lateur; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Curious: - vs . Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:52:47 -0600 (MDT), Dan Brian wrote: So why not $object!method(foo, bar); In my opinion, because it doesn't provide sufficient visual distinction between $object and method(). At a glance, especially on a crowded page, it's similar in appearance to $objectImethod, for instance. $object.method() has a visual separator (although I'd prefer $object-method()). How about borrowing from Objective C? [$object method(foo, bar)]; How do you create an anonymous list now then? Not that I object to borrowing from Objective C you realise. I thought ($one, $two, $three) was an anonymous list. Seriously, I hadn't considered that their may be a problem with the syntax I gave. How would you, under Perl5, interpret the expression I used. To me, it looks like a syntax error. '$object method(foo,bar)' isn't a valid method call, so it can't be a ref to an anonymous list of one value. Other than severe dependence on the comma, is there any reason why we couldn't have the following? $foo = [$one]; # array ref $baz = [$obj,funcall() ]; # array ref $quux = [$one,$two,$three]; # array ref $bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call $bat = [$one $two $three]; # syntax error -- Piers Cawley www.iterative-software.com
Curious: - vs .
I'm just gonna post this, then back off and listen (been yapping too much...) The previous discussions about string concat and how to replace . have revealed that people are somewhat divided over whether replacing - with . is actually good thing or not. I'm just curious what the arguments for and against it are. PLEASE don't turn this into an unproductive religious flamewar. I'm open-minded about it, but I at least need a little convincing. Whether or not this has any impact on Larry's decision is unknown, but it seems like it's good to at least have the pros and cons clearly on the table. Just to start it off, here are some of the arguments against changing this that I know of. If you know of others, or are on the for side of things, feel free speak up. Politely, PLEASE. Arguments Against Changing - and . --- - It gains superficial similarity to other HLL's, yet Perl is fundamentally semantically different from all of them. Plus, this is not the only syntactic difference. - JAPH compatibility. Thousands of people already know how deref and concat work, and they're the target audience for Perl 6, after all. Sure, we'd closer to Python, but we'd be further from Perl 5. - C compatibility. One of Perl's great strengths over other HLL's is C compatibility. Though this is still arguably not as good as it can be, why distance ourselves from the language we're trying to interact with? - Dissimilarity between Perl and languages like JavaScript can actually be beneficial. If you're generating code, this makes it easier to scan and see where your Perl ends and your Java begins. - Two keys less to press? Ever heard of macros? :-)
Re: Curious: - vs .
Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - C compatibility. One of Perl's great strengths over other HLL's is C compatibility. Though this is still arguably not as good as it can be, why distance ourselves from the language we're trying to interact with? You're thinking of objects as references and references as akin to pointers, which makes sense because that's how they're implemented in Perl 5. If you think of objects as their own entities, however, or think of references as something other than pointers (in particular, something that doesn't require explicit dereferencing), then using . to access object members is entirely compatible with C. I tried to make this point before, but I don't think people understood what I was getting at. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
