Re: method hiding (or not) in derived classes

2008-04-21 Thread TSa
HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: Perl 6 has a concept of a candidate list. The candidate list are those that could handle the call, typically inherited methods and multi variations. Candidate set would be a better term. It is a subset of all long names of a multi in a lexical scope. It seems

Re: method hiding (or not) in derived classes

2008-04-21 Thread John M. Dlugosz
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: Candidate set would be a better term. It is a subset of all long names of a multi in a lexical scope. List, not set, because it is ordered. nextsame/nextwith/etc. are described as invoking the next candidate on the list. Therefore, there is

Re: method hiding (or not) in derived classes

2008-04-21 Thread Larry Wall
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 08:00:07AM -, John M. Dlugosz wrote: : Perl 6 has a concept of a candidate list. The candidate list are those that could handle the call, typically inherited methods and multi variations. : : It seems that multi variations, at least with respect to the semicolon

Re: method hiding (or not) in derived classes

2008-04-21 Thread TSa
HaloO, John M. Dlugosz wrote: TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote: Candidate set would be a better term. It is a subset of all long names of a multi in a lexical scope. List, not set, because it is ordered. nextsame/nextwith/etc. are described as invoking the next candidate on

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-15 Thread Paul Seamons
I'd have to agree. I also think that .foo should always mean $_.foo in methods, without causing any errors if $?SELF =:= $_ becomes false. OK. There is a lot of historical threads on the subject and already a lot of legacy in the Perl6 language. OK - As I understand it, this is what A12

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-15 Thread Graham Barr
On Thu, July 14, 2005 10:47 am, Autrijus Tang said: If this were a straw poll, I'd say... 1. Meaning of $_ .method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Aankhen
On 7/14/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Certainly. The problem is that there are too many viable alternatives, and half of everyone hates half of the alternatives. You will know I'm no longer a benevolent dictator when I start to enjoy watching people squirm every time I change my

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Aankhen skribis 2005-07-14 12:39 (+0530): Well, you've certainly got everyone flustered enough that they'll be overjoyed even if you pick the alternative they hated the most... :-) It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I really hate when it's forced and used to

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Carl Mäsak
On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I really hate when it's forced and used to test patience. If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation, let me just give up my baby to the other woman by saying: * It's

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Autrijus Tang
If this were a straw poll, I'd say... 1. Meaning of $_ .method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal. 2. Topicalization of $?SELF Neutral on this -- I can

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Nathan Gray
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote: On 7/14/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I really hate when it's forced and used to test patience. If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation,

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400): Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust @larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent choice that will serve the community well. Would this

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:27:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : The way I am viewing the notion of current class for submethods : currently is: : : From inside another method or submethod: : : - a submethod should only be called from the class which defines it. This doesn't sound right to me.

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Stevan Little
Larry, Thanks for the detailed reply. Just a few more questions and I think I can get this into the metamodel :) On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:40 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:27:52PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : The way I am viewing the notion of current class for submethods :

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say use dot; it'll always be construed as unambigous. You could go so far as to

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:31:07PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : A submethod is simply a method that says These : aren't the droids you're looking for if you call it via either SMD : or MMD dispatch and the first invocant isn't of the exact run-time : type of the lexical class. In other words,

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-14 Thread Stevan Little
Larry, Thanks much, this all makes sense. :) Thanks, Stevan On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:31:07PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : Now, the metamodel currently does not have MMD, and I think next : METHOD is not as relevant in SMD. So would it make

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Rick Delaney
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:39:44PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say If .method always

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say use dot; ICK!

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-14 13:39 (-0700): On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. Thus it never means $?SELF.foo without $_ being

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Juerd
Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-07-15 1:09 (+0300): use dot; If we have pragmas for the 99 Perl6's that every wacko wants to have, we won't have any readability. The syntax needs to be consistent and useful, even at the price of some danger. Agreed. I don't want to be using a language

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Nathan Gray
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:09:57AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote: : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on : top?). It means that all the

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-14 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote: Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400): Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust @larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-13 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:51:49PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : Hello, : : More questions for the metamodel. I am trying to add proper submethod : and private method handling and I have a question about method : resolution order as a whole. I asked a similar question last week, but : this

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-13 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Aankhen wrote: : I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to : eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a : viable alternative that doesn't involve outlawing it? Certainly. The problem is that there are too

Re: Method Resolution Order question

2005-07-13 Thread Stevan Little
Larry, On Jul 13, 2005, at 2:30 PM, Larry Wall wrote: : The Syn/Apoc seem to indicate that methods and submethods of the same : name can coexist. So the class definition itself is legal. However, it : brings up an issue when it comes time to call bar(). If the Syn/Apoc is giving that

WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-12 Thread Juerd
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-11 18:29 (-0700): is that we simply outlaw .foo notation at *compile* time in those scopes where we know (at compile time) that $_ and $?SELF diverge. In such a scope you *must* specify $_ or $?SELF (or equivalent). What? That makes having a default at

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-12 Thread Yuval Kogman
I feel a me too post is in order. I've written code that is 2-3 levels of nested given/when in a method of an object that wasn't the topic. I did not feel confused at all, juggling .foo and ./foo, which are visually distinct, and different to type. They convey a big difference of meaning, even

Re: WTF? - Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-12 Thread Aankhen
On 7/12/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Disallowing .method here means a huge step back in time. Back to $_.method or $object.method. [snip] I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a viable

Re: How to write a self.pm (Re: method calls on $self)

2005-07-12 Thread TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Autrijus Tang wrote: The compiler, in turn inspect whether there's an bound $_ in scope with $?SELF set. It is not trivial, because this should work: sub baz (c) { c() } method foo { baz { .bar } } # $_ is free in inner closure But this needs to fail: sub baz (c) { c(1) }

Re: How to write a self.pm (Re: method calls on $self)

2005-07-12 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:36:23PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : : The obvious thought is to have yet

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-11 Thread Michele Dondi
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Robin Redeker wrote: I wasn't thinking 'cool', I was thinking 'visually distinctive and mnemonic'. I actually think o. is cooler. Yes, i would like o. more too. At least it doesn't introduce a completly meaningless '/' preceded by a '.'. Hmmm... I am one of those who

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-11 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote: : Hmmm... I am one of those who likes ./ more, instead. I mean, I _really_ : like it! Thus, how about making '/' less meaningless, i.e. more : meaningful, in more general situations?!? Um, do you have a specific proposal? Like

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-11 Thread Matt Fowles
Larry~ On 7/11/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote: : Hmmm... I am one of those who likes ./ more, instead. I mean, I _really_ : like it! Thus, how about making '/' less meaningless, i.e. more : meaningful, in more general

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-11 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:50:56PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: : Yay! I guess I will take this moment to resuggest @^ as a list of : invocants and $^ =:= @^[0]. I like how the ^ kinda points you the : right way, also visually distinctive and doesn't get in the way of : $_... I don't see much use

How to write a self.pm (Re: method calls on $self)

2005-07-11 Thread Autrijus Tang
(Cross-posting the new ruling from p6l to p6c to discuss implementation strategy) On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: { let $Larry.decisive = 1; Okay, this is what we're gonna do. We're gonna go back pretty close to where we were originally, but with a

Re: How to write a self.pm (Re: method calls on $self)

2005-07-11 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : The obvious thought is to have yet another magical, $^H like flag, to : denote the current dialect. If it is set, then the parser can emit : .method as $_.method, instead

Re: How to write a self.pm (Re: method calls on $self)

2005-07-11 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : The obvious thought is to have yet another magical, $^H like flag, to : denote the current dialect. If it

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-10 Thread Robin Redeker
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:36:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : Why does it have to be some sugared syntax when you can just simple : name it in the parameter list? : : Yes, but there seem to be quite some people who want : a 'cool' syntax for it. (ie. ./method ()). I wasn't thinking

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-09 Thread Robin Redeker
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: And what will be the default syntax to call a method on self? If everyone has completly other preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-09 Thread Robin Redeker
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: And what will be the default syntax to call a method on self? If everyone has completly other preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-09 Thread Robin Redeker
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote: And what will be the default syntax to call a method on self? If everyone has completly other preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method() syntax, which completly

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-09 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:28:34PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: : On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Stevan Little wrote: : I have never understood what is wrong with this: : : method foo ($self: $bar) { : $self.baz() : } : : Thats a fine option to have. : But therecomes another

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-09 Thread Larry Wall
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:43:01PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: : Maybe per .-file in the home-directory, like .vimrc ... Only if pulled in with a use. I don't want to see Perl programs implicitly starting in a variant language. Dialects must be declared. Otherwise you're in a situation like

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-08 Thread Robin Redeker
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:12:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: The basic problem is that I always hated looking at C++ and not knowing whether I was looking at a function or a method, so I'm not going to make standard Perl work like that. On the other hand, there's always use self ; to

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-08 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: And what will be the default syntax to call a method on self? If everyone has completly other preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method() syntax, which completly wont fit into the language, What a way to win

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-08 Thread Stevan Little
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote: And what will be the default syntax to call a method on self? If everyone has completly other preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method() syntax, which completly wont fit into the language, whose favorite will be the default?

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-07 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:32:37PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: Hi, i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on $self, and why does method () not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++) Because perl can't distinguish between the method foo() and the

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-07 Thread Robin Redeker
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:08:17PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:32:37PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote: Hi, i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on $self, and why does method () not work for calling a method on $self?

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-07 Thread Stuart Cook
On 7/8/05, Robin Redeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on $self, and why does method () not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++) IIRC, Larry wants to be able to distinguish method calls from sub calls, so that

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-07 Thread Larry Wall
The basic problem is that I always hated looking at C++ and not knowing whether I was looking at a function or a method, so I'm not going to make standard Perl work like that. On the other hand, there's always use self ; to go with everyone else's preferences: use self . use self `

Re: method calls on $self

2005-07-07 Thread Uri Guttman
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LW to go with everyone else's preferences: LW use self . LW use self ` LW use self · LW use self .. LW use self ^. LW use self i. LW use self o. LW use self ¤. LW use self me. LW use self

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-21 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-21 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-21 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-21 Thread Matthew Zimmerman
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-21 Thread Matthew Zimmerman
[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 `./`.

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-20 Thread Kurt
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-20 Thread Juerd
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 --

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-20 Thread Kurt
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-20 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-19 Thread Adam Kennedy
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-19 Thread David Storrs
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-19 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Adam Kennedy
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Darren Duncan
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()

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Juerd
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread chromatic
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Damian Conway
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-18 Thread Darren Duncan
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-17 Thread John Siracusa
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-17 Thread David Storrs
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

Re: ./method defunct

2005-06-17 Thread John Siracusa
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?

Re: ./method

2005-05-19 Thread Martin Kuehl
On 5/15/05, Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few days ago, when typing ./pugs,... You can guess the rest :) I suggest ./method to mean $?SELF.method, and ../method to mean $?SELF.SUPER::method, or however that's normally written. This syntax doesn't clash with anything,

Re: ./method

2005-05-19 Thread Carl Franks
On 5/19/05, Martin Kuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have tried, but I can't make myself like it. aolI'm afraid I have to agree./aol When I saw it used in code after this discussion (I think it must have been somewhere in pugs t/ or ext/) my reaction was yuck. (for what it's worth) Carl

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-18 Thread TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
HaloO Juerd, you wrote: (This illustrates my feeling about @foo[] being the same as @foo. It feels inconsistent with foo() not being foo.) I have the same feeling. But I would like @foo[] to mean something else than plain @foo which should be---hmm, how shall I put that---a underefenced reference

Re: ^method ? (Is $_ still aliasing $?SELF?)

2005-05-18 Thread TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Damian Conway wrote: Now, personally, I would like to see a short-cut for *both* types of method call,... Looks like this syntax is now .method and ./method plus the private counterpart .:method. If I have .foo() as $_.foo(), then I can get unary method call on invocant very easily, even if

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-16 Thread Matthew Walton
On 15/05/05 22:48 +0100, Matthew Walton wrote: I don't think that is what Rob is saying at all. It wasn't aimed entirely at Rob. I have a bad habit on mailing lists of vaguely replying to the entire thread without remembering who said what and being too lazy to check. My read:

Re: ./method

2005-05-16 Thread Juerd
Damian Conway skribis 2005-05-16 10:33 (+1000): This missing design rationale here is that the colon acts as part of the unary operator: ./unary public-method-call-on-invocant .:unary private-method-call-on-invocant So the rule is: One-character operator -- call on $_

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-16 Thread Matt Fowles
All~ I feel like people have lost track of one of the initial arguments for having C .method == $?SELF.method . Currently, all of $.foo @.foo %.foo and their ilk operate on the current invocant, $?SELF. This leads naturally toward .foo also refering to $?SELF. But as we all know the is

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-16 Thread wolverian
On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: $.foo @.foo %.foo and their ilk operate on the current invocant, $?SELF. This leads naturally toward .foo also refering to $?SELF. But as we all know the is optional on function calls... I believe you are thinking in Perl 5.

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-16 Thread Ingo Blechschmidt
Hi, wolverian wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 02:26:02PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: $.foo @.foo %.foo and their ilk operate on the current invocant, $?SELF. This leads naturally toward .foo also refering to $?SELF. But as we all know the is optional on function calls... I believe you

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-16 Thread Juerd
Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-05-16 21:28 (+0200): yes, but with parens, it *is* a call: sub foo(...) {...} say foo(...); # Calls foo say foo(...); # Calls foo say foo; # CODE(0x) or somesuch Only because there's an implicit . there. This is like saying that

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-15 Thread Juerd
Rod Adams skribis 2005-05-14 20:09 (-0500): o. O. this. self. me. Not special syntax, meaning you can no longer use these identifiers for your own class. Bad style to use single-letter identifiers, but we know what trouble $a and $b in Perl 5 cause, and the B:: namespace. I believe they

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-15 Thread Juerd
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-05-14 21:12 (-0400): What's wrong with just defaulting to $self? Are you kidding, trolling or just completely ignorant of what has been discussed the past days? That's standard P5 OO, expected everywhere No, Perl 5 has no default for methods. Its - always needs an

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-15 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:19:53PM +0200, Juerd wrote: Or was your choice of words poor, and did you not mean to discuss the dot's *default*, but instead a standard way to write the current invocant? I think what Rob suggested is that: method ($foo) means method ($self: $foo) by

Re: ^method ?

2005-05-15 Thread Juerd
Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-05-15 19:28 (+0800): On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:19:53PM +0200, Juerd wrote: Or was your choice of words poor, and did you not mean to discuss the dot's *default*, but instead a standard way to write the current invocant? I think what Rob suggested is that:

Re: ./method

2005-05-15 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:44:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote: I suggest ./method to mean $?SELF.method Your opinions please! (I ask those who already responded off-list, to repeat their opinion here) I like it. Tentatively implemented as r3253 for people to experiment with. The converted

Re: ./method

2005-05-15 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 13:44:44 +0200, Juerd wrote: A few days ago, when typing ./pugs,... You can guess the rest :) I suggest ./method to mean $?SELF.method, and ../method Your opinions please! (I ask those who already responded off-list, to repeat their opinion here)

Re: ./method

2005-05-15 Thread Fagyal Csongor
I also like this notation. However, as a side note, let me voice the opinion that the bad reputation of Perl partially comes from the fact that it often looks like line noise. I think everybody know this. Now there has been a lot of discussion on finding different meanings for any two-character

  1   2   >