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: 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: 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: 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: 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