On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Juerd wrote:
Whatever, the new system by contrast seems to me to be at least 400%
more complex, but it won't buy me 400% more functionality.
It will buy you 400% in saving typing, 4000% in less debubbing and
4% in maintainability(==readability).
Of course drawing any
On 11/7/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
So, for a bit of extra complexity, I get peace of mind for myself and my
users.
The point being, and I'm stressing it once again but no more than once,
that maybe we're adding two bits of extra
On Monday 07 November 2005 09:26 am, Rob Kinyon wrote:
On 11/7/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
So, for a bit of extra complexity, I get peace of mind for myself and
my users.
The point being, and I'm stressing it once again but no more
On 2005-11-07 1:30 PM, Andrew Rodland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Especially when that complexity isn't optional. I
think that's really a common fear, that Perl 6 is going well beyond that
point of sensibility.
If you want to get into personal beliefs, I think that function signatures are
such
Andrew Rodland skribis 2005-11-07 13:30 (-0500):
If you want to get into personal beliefs, I think that function signatures
are
such a complexity quagmire -- and that they're line-noise ugly to boot.
The nice thing about signatures is that they let you write what you
mean. This saves you an
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 09:51:39PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Or let's take this simple example:
:
: sub convert (:$from, :$to, :$thing) { ... }
:
: That isn't quite my %args = @_;. Yes, that works, but the only real
: way we keep doing it is that the full solution sucks in plain Perl 5:
:
:
Okay, I won't shout (not even on PerlMonks :-), but named parameters
default to optional, so you'd have to write that as
sub convert (:$from!, :$to!, :$thing!) { ... }
in the current scheme of things.
Either way, the point is still that the benefits FAR outweigh any
additional
On Monday 07 November 2005 03:51 pm, Juerd wrote:
Andrew Rodland skribis 2005-11-07 13:30 (-0500):
If you want to get into personal beliefs, I think that function
signatures are such a complexity quagmire -- and that they're line-noise
ugly to boot.
The nice thing about signatures is that
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 04:46:06PM -0500, Andrew Rodland wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't clear here, so I hope you don't mind my cutting you off. What
I meant wasn't signatures are too much complexity -- they're not; they're
simply doing something useful -- but rather too much complexity is getting
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-07 13:20 (-0800):
Okay, I won't shout (not even on PerlMonks :-), but named parameters
default to optional, so you'd have to write that as
sub convert (:$from!, :$to!, :$thing!) { ... }
in the current scheme of things.
Ah, thanks.
I hadn't noticed this change,
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Nate Wiger wrote:
just to be sure we're on the same page: You say that the thing that
is going to hinder migration to Perl 6 is the fact that it's different
from Perl 5.
Intentionally trite oversimplification. My problem is that it's
different in some ways which are
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-11-04 14:58 (+0100):
Let me explain: we all know that Perl5 has a very simple parameter
passing mechanism for subs and an even more rudimentary
{prototyping,signature} mechanism that one actually seldom uses.
It is unused because it sucks. /blunt
With this simple
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Juerd wrote:
for simple subs in Perl6 I will probably still use @_
You'd be a fool to do so, with the sole exception of list manipulation,
[snip]
Compare:
sub dosomething { @_[0] blah @_[1] }
sub dosomething ($a, $b) { $a blah $b }
sub dosomething { $^a blah
On 11/4/05, Michele Dondi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm still convinced my remark _partly_ applies in the sense that the
overall impression is that a vast majority of most common needs is
addressed by a *subset* of the current features and trying to stuff all
them in has brought in quite a lot
It will buy you 400% in saving typing, 4000% in less debubbing and
4% in maintainability(==readability).
I think this is the main point here. With @_ and bless() you could do
cool things, but again it happened at the expense of repetition and
all those other buzzwords (maintainability, et
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:49:05PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
sub dosomething { $^a blah $^b }
I think the $^ variables are only allowed in bare (or -) blocks. (As a
guard against san.. er, madness.)
--
Ilmari Vacklin (wolverian)
16 matches
Mail list logo
