Uri Guttman wrote:
.= could still be left working as that is a complete separate op from
method invocation.
I see a major potential problem with that.
Assuming (which I do) that the equals operator will be
overridable, then you'll need to be able to write
$obj.='x';
meaning this
Ok, time for me to shot down.
I've already voiced my views about trying to make addition and
concatination into a single operator in a typeless language
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg06550.html
and I think its a losing proposition.
So here's something simple. Sort
Michael G Schwern wrote:
cc and ce
Perl 5 Perl 6
print foo . bar;print foo cc bar;
print 2 . 4;print 2 cc 4;
print foo . ($i + 1);print foo cc ($i + 1);
$foo .= bar ;
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
$a = $b . $a;
Under the above plan, maybe this is:
$a ca $b;
For concat after?
I'd rather it be called pp for prepend. :-)
It's good that we decided to let Larry design the language, otherwise
we'd be mired in muck
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
: Michael G Schwern wrote:
:
: cc and ce
:
: Perl 5 Perl 6
: print foo . bar;print foo cc bar;
: print 2 . 4;print 2 cc 4;
: print foo .
NW == Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NW$a = $b . $a;
NW Under the above plan, maybe this is:
NW$a ca $b;
substr( $a, 0, 0, $b ) ;
$a =~ s/^/$b/ ;
just my $.02 on this. i rarely use bare . for concat. as someone else
mentioned, it is usually only needed
~ looks like a string to me Larry sycophant that I am.
, also looks a little like a string. And is keyboard friendly.
Its doubtless naive to suggest it, but why not:
Perl 5 Perl 6
--- ---
- .
+ +
. ~+
eq ~==
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
While we're brainstorming a wish-list, here's something I've always
wanted, a replacement for:
$a = $b . $a;
I don't think there's any pressing need for this unless you can show a
common case where a prepend op would make
Uri Guttman wrote:
on the other hand, i use .= all the time and wouldn't like to lose
it. schwern idea of ce doesn't work for me as only the op= stuff means
assignment and ce would break that (e for = isn't visual enough).
I was just thinking, too bad that Larry's claiming the colon
From: Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: YA string concat proposal
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:05:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Under the above plan, maybe this is:
$a ca $b;
For concat after?
I'd
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:42:43PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Uri Guttman wrote:
on the other hand, i use .= all the time and wouldn't like to lose
it. schwern idea of ce doesn't work for me as only the op= stuff means
assignment and ce would break that (e for = isn't visual enough).
Stephen P. Potter wrote:
Oh, and since it hasn't been mentioned for awhile, I'd still prefer if =~
and !~ went away and were replaced by match(string, [pattern], options),
replace(string, [pattern], options) and trans(string, [pattern], options)
or some such. This is one place where I
12 matches
Mail list logo
