Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-08-03 Thread Piers Cawley
Autrijus Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and let people say Any explicitly if they really want to suppress autothreading. Otherwise conditionals and switches are going

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-28 Thread TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
Larry Wall wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote: : Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my from ::Any : towards ::All version. That's pretty, but if you don't move Junction upward, you haven't really addressed the question Autrijus is asking.

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-28 Thread Yuval Kogman
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 00:26:27 +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: Er, but Junctions take methods, the same way Objects do, so if there is an Object in the type hierarchy, Junction probably belongs to it. Maybe there is a role called 'Junctive'? I think junctions are orthogonal to other types, except

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-28 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 09:27:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Or maybe Any really does mean Object and we're just viewing our hierarchy too strictly if we make every relationship isa. That's one thing that neither this formulation nor Thomas's are making very clear--which type relations are

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-28 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 05:59:43AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: I can see marking things explicitly for named bindings: foo(:literalpair); foo(*%nameds); foo(*$pair); foo([EMAIL PROTECTED]); Er, sorry, the last one should be foo(*%{ hash @list_of_pairs }); Thanks,

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:01:25PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and : let people say Any explicitly if they really want to suppress autothreading. : Otherwise

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Matt Fowles
Larry~ On 7/27/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 08:01:25PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: : On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:40:34PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: : I dunno. I'm inclined to say that it should default to Item|Pair, and : let people say Any explicitly if

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:19:10PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: While we are talking about words... I dislike having Object encompass Juction. I get the feeling that some people will write functions that take Objects and not expect Junctions to slip in. I suppose that could be one of those

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread TSa (Thomas Sandlaß)
HaloO, Larry Wall wrote: Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is that any() isn't an Any. Maybe we should rename Any to Atom. Then maybe swap Item with Atom, since in colloquial English you can say that pair of people are an item. Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote: : Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my from ::Any : towards ::All version. That's pretty, but if you don't move Junction upward, you haven't really addressed the question Autrijus is asking. We're looking for

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Mark A. Biggar
Larry Wall wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 06:28:22PM +0200, TSa (Thomas Sandlaß) wrote: : Since we are in type hierachies these days, here's my from ::Any : towards ::All version. That's pretty, but if you don't move Junction upward, you haven't really addressed the question Autrijus is asking.

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 09:12:00AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is that any() isn't an Any. snip - Object - Mumble - Item - ...pretty much everything - Pair - Junction - num, int, str... Hrm. I

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Darren Duncan
At 9:12 AM -0700 7/27/05, Larry Wall wrote: Yes. The only thing I don't like about it is that any() isn't an Any. Maybe we should rename Any to Atom. Then maybe swap Item with Atom, since in colloquial English you can say that pair of people are an item. That would give us: - Object

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Larry Wall
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:19:10PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote: : While we are talking about words... I dislike having Object encompass : Juction. I get the feeling that some people will write functions that : take Objects and not expect Junctions to slip in. I suppose that : could be one of those

Re: Elimination of Item|Pair and Any|Junction

2005-07-27 Thread Autrijus Tang
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 03:55:55AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: Hrm. I thought the original motivation of forcing people to write Any|Junction was precisely to discourage people from accidentally write sub foo (Any $x) and have $x accept a Junction. In other words, any()