Jonathan Lang skribis 2006-09-19 16:39 (-0700):
Anyway, it's not clear to me that grep always has an exact opposite.
I don't see why it ever wouldn't: you test each item in the list, and
the item either passes or fails. 'select' would filter out the items
that fail the test, while 'reject'
Just to point out that it's probably worth going back and rereading the
earlier iterations of this discussion, in December 2002 (subject: purge: the
opposite of grep) and November 2005 (subject: Classification syntax). That
way, those who repeat history are condemned to study it. ;-)
In
Damian Conway wrote:
In other words, classify() takes a list of values, examines each in
turn, and ascribes a label value to it. The call returns a list of
pairs, where each pair key is one of the label values and each pair
value is an array of all the list values that were ascribed that
Aaron ():
OK then. Just so that I can type of the final result in S29, let's see
if everyone agrees to several points that have been made in this thread:
1. classify is the real grep
2. convenience function, keep is probably a macro
3. use List :compat will get you a grep just as it will likely
I still don't think we have a consensus that grep needs to be renamed,
much less what it should be renamed to. To me, keep implies throwing
the rest away,I.e., modifying the list. Select has the advantage of
lacking that connotation. To avoid dissonance with the two perl5
selects, we could go
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still don't think we have a consensus that grep needs to be renamed,
much less what it should be renamed to. To me, keep implies throwing
the rest away,I.e., modifying the list. Select has the advantage of
lacking that connotation. To avoid dissonance with the two
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:38:38PM +0200, Thomas Wittek wrote:
Jonathan Lang schrieb:
IMHO, syntax should be left alone until a compelling reason to change
it is found. While I think it would be nice to have a more intuitive
name for grep
What would be the
Just a perl 5 physicist here. I had to run to the Camel book to find out that
grep existed in the world of perl. But I have done this (from memory):
$stuff_in_lines = `grep suntide *.txt`;
I never thought about the potential for serious ambiguity in interpretation.
The UNIX grep tool is really
On 20 Sep 2006, at 18:41, Doug McNutt wrote:
I never thought about the potential for serious ambiguity in
interpretation. The UNIX grep tool is really dissimilar considering
that it uses a different regular expression syntax.
(perl grep doesn't have to be used with an RE of course)
I guess
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 06:54:11PM +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
: The Beatles probably sounded like a really dumb name for a band once.
:
: Is there a serious objection to letting it be?
Let it be. :)
Larry
On 20 Sep 2006, at 19:05, Larry Wall wrote:
Let it be. :)
I could just as easily have called for a revolution :)
--
Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
names they're given. The Beatles probably sounded like a really
dumb name for a band once.
But maybe less dumb than 'The Quarrymen', which was the original name of
the band. (They all went to Quarry Bank school, now Calderstones.)
Perhaps the renaming, unfettered by their history or by a
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:11:42PM +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
On 20 Sep 2006, at 19:05, Larry Wall wrote:
Let it be. :)
I could just as easily have called for a revolution :)
No, you should have quoted differently:
On 20 Sep 2006, at 19:05, Larry Wall whispered words of wisdom:
Let it
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:44:49PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 07:11:42PM +0100, Andy Armstrong wrote:
: On 20 Sep 2006, at 19:05, Larry Wall wrote:
: Let it be. :)
:
: I could just as easily have called for a revolution :)
:
: No, you should have quoted
Darren Duncan wrote:
So filter is now my preference for a new name, and if
grep is kept, then that can be an alias for it;
We've also had a policy of removing synonyms (e.g. for/foreach),
so I think we should have only one name for any one function.
Damian
Darren Duncan writes:
At 6:26 AM +0200 9/19/06, Damian Conway wrote:
... *if* we're going to change it from grep, we ought to change it
to filter.
I agree. So filter is now my preference for a new name, and if
grep is kept, then that can be an alias for it;
No: no aliases. Perl
Damian Conway writes:
I don't object in principle to renaming grep to something more self
explanatory (except for the further loss of backwards compatability
and historical Unix reference...though that didn't stop us with
switch vs given ;-)
But while Cswitch had precedence in computer
On 9/19/06, Trey Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Darren Duncan writes:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be written:
@filtered = any(@originals) ~~ { .foo eq $bar};
This doesn't seem to be correct.
According to S03
Smylers wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
I don't object in principle to renaming grep to something more self
explanatory (except for the further loss of backwards compatability
and historical Unix reference...though that didn't stop us with
switch vs given ;-)
But while Cswitch had precedence
Jonathan Lang schrieb:
IMHO, syntax should be left alone until a compelling reason to change
it is found. While I think it would be nice to have a more intuitive
name for grep
What would be the disadvantage of renaming it to a more intuitive name?
I can only see advantages.
I don't think that
Smylers == Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Smylers No: no aliases. Perl does not have a tradition of these,
except for/foreach. :)
But I agree with the rest of your position.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
merlyn@stonehenge.com
In a message dated Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Markus Laire writes:
On 9/19/06, Trey Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Darren Duncan writes:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be written:
@filtered = any(@originals) ~~ { .foo eq
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
Smylers == Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Smylers No: no aliases. Perl does not have a tradition of these,
except for/foreach. :)
I don't reckon one instance is enough to be labelled a tradition!
(Um ... actually I forgot about that one. But if I had
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:38:38PM +0200, Thomas Wittek wrote:
Jonathan Lang schrieb:
IMHO, syntax should be left alone until a compelling reason to change
it is found. While I think it would be nice to have a more intuitive
name for grep
What would be the disadvantage of renaming it to a
As a random alternative, I note that Ruby's analog to grep is called
find_all (though it also has a grep that behaves differently from
Perl's). Personally, I'm not enamored of filter because it has
connotations of removal...
On 9/19/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep
Smylers wrote:
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
Smylers == Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Smylers No: no aliases. Perl does not have a tradition of these,
except for/foreach. :)
I don't reckon one instance is enough to be labelled a tradition!
(Um ... actually I forgot about that one. But
(by the way, newbies don't use grep because list transforms confuse and
intimidate, not because of the name).
I dispute that. List transforms and grep are wholly separate beast,
having nothing to do with each other besides the fact that the list
transform idiom happens to use grep. It also
Mark J. Reed wrote:
(by the way, newbies don't use grep because list transforms confuse and
intimidate, not because of the name).
I dispute that. List transforms and grep are wholly separate beast,
This was a minor side-comment. Let's stay focused and not rat-hole on
our respective
On 9/19/06, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This was a minor side-comment. Let's stay focused and not rat-hole on
our respective definitions of list transform.
Fair enough. Sorry for the distraction. To return to the topic at
hand (STAY ON TARGET! STAY ON TARGET!), so far we have
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:26:30 -0400
As a random alternative, I note that Ruby's analog to grep is called
find_all (though it also has a grep that behaves differently from
Perl's). Personally, I'm not enamored of filter because it has
connotations of
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:38:38PM +0200, Thomas Wittek wrote:
Jonathan Lang schrieb:
IMHO, syntax should be left alone until a compelling reason to change
it is found. While I think it would be nice to have a more intuitive
name for grep
What would be the
On 9/19/06, Bob Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. Is this because Perl 5 grep can be used to modify a list in place?
Does Perl 6 grep also allow that? The Lisp equivalent is remove-if-not,
which otherwise seems like a perfect description of what Perl grep does.
Except that Perl lists,
At 5:48 PM -0400 9/19/06, Bob Rogers wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:26:30 -0400
As a random alternative, I note that Ruby's analog to grep is called
find_all (though it also has a grep that behaves differently from
Perl's). Personally, I'm not enamored
Oh, here's a thought ...
In signal processing electronics and such, filters are
often/sometimes named after what they let through. For example,
high pass filter or low pass filter to allow through either high
or low frequencies, for example.
On that note, if this isn't causing another
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 05:38:32PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I have no horse in this race. My personal preference would be to
: leave grep as grep. My second choice is select, which to me is
: more descriptive than filter; it also readily suggests an antonym of
: reject to do a grep -v (cf.
On 9/19/06, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But which *ect do we call the one that returns both? One would like to
be able to say:
@stuff.direct(
{ .wanted } == my @accepted;
default == my @rejected;
);
Well, sure, but at that point you've moved beyond the
Larry Wall wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I have no horse in this race. My personal preference would be to
: leave grep as grep. My second choice is select, which to me is
: more descriptive than filter; it also readily suggests an antonym of
: reject to do a grep -v (cf. if ! vs unless). But
I envision a select, reject, and partition, where
@a.partition($foo)
Returns the logical equivalent of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]($foo), @a.select($foo)]
But only executes $foo once per item. In fact. I'd expect partition
to be the base op and select and reject to be defined as
partition()[1] and
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
: I have no horse in this race. My personal preference would be to
: leave grep as grep. My second choice is select, which to me is
: more descriptive than filter; it also readily suggests an antonym of
: reject to do a grep -v (cf.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:39:35PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Anyway, it's not clear to me that grep always has an exact opposite.
I don't see why it ever wouldn't: you test each item in the list, and
the item either passes or fails. 'select' would filter out the items
that fail the test,
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 07:56:44PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I envision a select, reject, and partition, where
@a.partition($foo)
Returns the logical equivalent of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]($foo), @a.select($foo)]
But only executes $foo once per item. In fact. I'd expect partition
to
In a message dated Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Darren Duncan writes:
Putting aside legacy issues for the moment,
I suggest that it might be appropriate to rename the .grep list operator to
.where, so we can say, for example:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be
At 3:36 PM -0700 9/18/06, Trey Harris wrote:
In a message dated Mon, 18 Sep 2006, Darren Duncan writes:
I suggest that it might be appropriate to rename the .grep list
operator to .where, so we can say, for example:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be
Trey Harris schrieb:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
Note that this can be written:
@filtered = any(@originals) ~~ { .foo eq $bar};
I generally like words more than sequences of non-word characters as
you can quickly remember/guess the meaning, what's not always the case
Darren Duncan wrote:
Putting aside legacy issues for the moment,
I suggest that it might be appropriate to rename the .grep list operator
to .where, so we can say, for example:
@filtered = @originals.where:{ .foo eq $bar };
We already have a where keyword in the language, which is
We have gone to a great deal of trouble to remove homonyms (such as
eval/eval,select/select,do/do/do) from Perl 6, so I
would be very unhappy to see us create a new one by re-using where
to mean two different things.
I don't object in principle to renaming grep to something more self
explanatory
At 6:26 AM +0200 9/19/06, Damian Conway wrote:
The standard--and self-explanatory--CS term for this operation has
always been filter, which is also currently used by Python, Scheme,
Haskell, and numerous other languages, so *if* we're going to change
it from grep, we ought to change it to
On Nov 19, 2005, at 13:08 , Chip Salzenberg wrote:
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:46:51AM +0200, Ilmari Vacklin wrote:
I don't much like it - it looks like a mistyped 'shift'.
Is 'filter' too long?
I usually avoid P6L discussions, but:
GNU Make has filter and filter-out, and I've always found
48 matches
Mail list logo
