David Green wrote:
I bet we actually don't disagree much; I'm not really against ro --
I'm just not against readonly because of its length. If I were
writing casually, I'd use rw and ro; formally, I'd use read only
and read/write (or even readable and writable). At an in-between
level,
On 2008-Sep-23, at 5:27 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
David Green wrote:
Happily, brevity often aids clarity. The rest of the time, it
should be up to one's editor; any editor worth its salt ought to
easily auto-complete ro into readonly.
Eeep! The your IDE should write your verbose code
On 2008 Sep 24, at 17:45, David Green wrote:
On 2008-Sep-23, at 5:27 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
David Green wrote:
Happily, brevity often aids clarity. The rest of the time, it
should be up to one's editor; any editor worth its salt ought to
easily auto-complete ro into readonly.
Eeep!
PS Incidentally, it seems silly to have is rw but not is ro. I keep
writing is ro.
The synopses says readonly. But now that it is possible, I nominate changing
a hyphen.
I'm not opposed to having it be ro, but wonder why he didn't call it that in
the first place, so there must be a
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I'm not opposed to having it be ro, but wonder why he didn't call it that
in the first place, so there must be a reason.
Nobody's perfect?
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out
On 2008-Sep-23, at 2:32 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out over
brevity, the flip
side of Huffamn encoding. But that doesn't work out so good for
normal
variable
David Green wrote:
On 2008-Sep-23, at 2:32 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote:
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
it's not
thought you'd have to write it much so clarity wins out over brevity,
the flip
side of Huffamn encoding. But that doesn't work out so good for
Michael G Schwern schwern-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
It should be possible to alias it in your own scope easily.
Every time someone replies to a Perl 6 language design nit with but you can
change the grammar *I* kill a kitten.
*meowmmmf*
That would not be a change in the
Michael G Schwern schwern-at-pobox.com |Perl 6| wrote:
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
I'm not opposed to having it be ro, but wonder why he didn't call it that
in the first place, so there must be a reason.
Nobody's perfect?
My other thought is that since parameters are read-only by default
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 07:02:37PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm pondering what the proper syntax is for a subroutine parameter with both a
trait and a default. That is...
sub foo ($arg = 42)
and
sub foo ($arg is readonly)
together in one parameter. Would that be
HaloO,
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
The STD.pm grammar [1] shows that the second is the correct form --
i.e., default values occur after traits.
IIRC, there used to be an 'is default(42)' trait that could
be placed arbitrarily.
PS Incidentally, it seems silly to have is rw but not is ro. I
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 07:02:37PM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I'm pondering what the proper syntax is for a subroutine parameter with both
a
trait and a default. That is...
sub foo ($arg = 42)
and
sub foo ($arg is readonly)
together in one
12 matches
Mail list logo
