ames" might be less in-your-face.
>
> Why are we even having to say use English or Names or whatever? Why
> not just make it a part of the core alongside the original short
> special var names? In my opinion the short version of special vars is
> one of the worst features of Perl, des
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> As a side note, I'd like to suggest that "English" is just rubbing
> people's noses in the fact that they're not allowed to program in their
> native tongue. "Names" might be less in-your-face.
Why are we even having to say us
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 14:38, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > There's still a lot of premature optimization going on [...]
> > I'm surely guilty of one of them. I feel like the autothreading
> > semantics of junctions will be way to expensive without the compiler
> > knowing wheth
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 14:38, Luke Palmer wrote:
> There's still a lot of premature optimization going on [...]
> I'm surely guilty of one of them. I feel like the autothreading
> semantics of junctions will be way to expensive without the compiler
> knowing whether there a junction in a particula
On Apr 27, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
The reasons I don't "use English" in P5:
* Variable access is slower
Hmm, looks to me like $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR is faster. (Actually
they're the
Aaron Sherman writes:
> > Ever since I stopped caring about speed, I've started to write code
> > almost twice as fast. And the code itself isn't slower.
>
> Ok, so let's separate the premature optimization from removing massive
> bottlenecks from code. When I can get a reporting program that t
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 10:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Aaron Sherman writes:
> > The reasons I don't "use English" in P5:
> >
> > * Variable access is slower
> Hmm, looks to me like $INPUT_RECORD_SEPARATOR is faster. (Actually
> they're the
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:24 -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
>
> > Not exactly a fair comparison, since it's common to not "use English"
> > due to the $& issue.
> >
> > I suspect that if that was not the case, it would be used m
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 22:24 -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> Not exactly a fair comparison, since it's common to not "use English"
> due to the $& issue.
>
> I suspect that if that was not the case, it would be used more.
The reasons I don't "use English&q
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:45:14PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
: > defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
:
: Interesting, I hadn't considered that.
:
: Having a quick browse through some of th
Larry Wall wrote:
> Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start
> defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier.
Interesting, I hadn't considered that.
Having a quick browse through some of the discussions about macros, many
of the macros I saw[
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote:
: Juerd wrote:
: >>According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English
: >>speakers and 600 million people who have English as a second language.
: >>Should the remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from wri
Juerd wrote:
According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
and 600 million people who have English as a second language. Should the
remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing perl code just so that
we English speakers can understand all the code that is w
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 07:42, David Cantrell wrote:
> > You might argue that Language::Dutch should never ship with the core...
> > that's a valid opinion, but SOMEONE is going to write it. It'd be a kind
> > of strange form of censorship for CPAN not to accept it. After all,
> > there's more than
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 14:52 (+0100):
> > Yes, if it is done, people are indeed involved, but if we all agree that
> > something must happen, that's not terribly relevant. And before we can
>
> That's another dangerous word.
Not in combination with "if we all agree" :)
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:48:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Juerd skribis 2005-04-12 15:46 (+0200):
> > Please note that I try to not think about who's going to implement it at
> > all. That makes being creative and coming up with good ideas much, much
> > easier.
>
> And to be honest, it makes comin
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:46:03PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Yes, if it is done, people are indeed involved, but if we all agree that
> something must happen, that's not terribly relevant. And before we can
That's another dangerous word.
> If stuff is only happening because people c
Juerd skribis 2005-04-12 15:46 (+0200):
> Please note that I try to not think about who's going to implement it at
> all. That makes being creative and coming up with good ideas much, much
> easier.
And to be honest, it makes coming up with bad ideas much easier than
that even :)
Juerd
--
http:
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 14:34 (+0100):
> > Yes, should. That's ideology, though.
> I read "should" as a danger word. It's often person A describing a desirable
> feature and intimating that unspecified other people B-Z ought to be
> implementing it.
Please note that I try to not think ab
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:09:10PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 13:58 (+0100):
> > > (Still, having them around does help many people, and that's why I think
> > > perldocs should perhaps come in several languages (as a different
> > > project, so translation delays don't
But your numbers are utterly useless, as they are counts of humans, not
> programmers. I think that the number of programmers who don't understand
> English is very small. They know English because historically, the
> programmer's world has been English.
My point was that English speakers are in
> > > I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters
> in
> > > identifiers, even.
> > I think we already have Latin-1 in identifiers...
>
> more's the pity.
According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
and 600 million people who have Engli
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Thomas Yandell skribis 2005-04-12 13:13 (+0100):
> > According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
> > and 600 million people who have English as a second language. Should the
> > remaining ~5.5 billion humans
On Tuesday 12 April 2005 07:42 am, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters
> > > in identifiers, even.
> >
> > I think we already have Latin-1 in identifiers...
>
> more's the
Nicholas Clark skribis 2005-04-12 13:58 (+0100):
> > (Still, having them around does help many people, and that's why I think
> > perldocs should perhaps come in several languages (as a different
> > project, so translation delays don't delay Perl releases)).
> "Should" ?
Yes, should. That's ideol
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:38:01PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> (Still, having them around does help many people, and that's why I think
> perldocs should perhaps come in several languages (as a different
> project, so translation delays don't delay Perl releases)).
"Should" ?
Who is going to pay for a
Thomas Yandell skribis 2005-04-12 13:13 (+0100):
> According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English speakers
> and 600 million people who have English as a second language. Should the
> remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from writing perl code just so that
> we English sp
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 03:42:25PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I don't think you can say (as Larry has) that you want to be able to
> fully re-define the language from within itself and still impose the
> constraint that "it can't confuse people who don't know anything about
> my module."
>
> Yo
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Juerd wrote:
Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide a
"Language::Russian" and "Language::Nihongo"? Given Perl 6, it would even
[snip]
Because providing it leads to its use, and when it gets used, knowing
English is no longer enough.
I have some code that uses
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 15:00, Juerd wrote:
> Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-04-11 14:49 (-0400):
> > Yes, but it will be spelled:
> > use $*LANG ;-)
> > Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide a
> > "Language::Russian" and "Language::Nihongo"? Given Perl 6, it would even
> > be qui
On 2005-04-11 15:00, "Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm not even sure I like the *possibility* of using non-ascii letters in
> identifiers, even.
I agree that it would be a nightmare if project A used presu instead of
print everywhere, while project B used toon, etc. But non-ASCII iden
Aaron Sherman skribis 2005-04-11 14:49 (-0400):
> Yes, but it will be spelled:
> use $*LANG ;-)
> Seriously, is there some reason that we would not provide a
> "Language::Russian" and "Language::Nihongo"? Given Perl 6, it would even
> be quite valid for those modules to add aliases for all of
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 14:31, Juerd wrote:
> David Vergin skribis 2005-04-11 9:44 (-0700):
> > What's the word. Will there be something like "use English"?
>
> Yes, and it's the default :)
Yes, but it will be spelled:
use $*LANG ;-)
Seriously, is
David Vergin skribis 2005-04-11 9:44 (-0700):
> What's the word. Will there be something like "use English"?
Yes, and it's the default :)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
I'm working on docs/S28draft.pod in the pugs project. And consulting perl5's
perlvar.pod, the issue of "use English" comes up. AFAICT from various sources,
little has been said about this
NOTE:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/perl.perl6.language/msg/fa241233bcfba024:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 07:32:42AM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Yeah, I've never liked the _ syntax, I've always thought it was weird
> > (to say the least). I think grouping file tests would be much cleaner.
>
> As long as you are okay with havin
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Yeah, I've never liked the _ syntax, I've always thought it was weird
> (to say the least). I think grouping file tests would be much cleaner.
As long as you are okay with having to restat for 'or' clauses.
(There are work arounds, and supposedly 'this
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
> > > that "use English" was a
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find that I don't remember many of the less-frequently-used perlvars
> (where less-frequently-used depends on the types of programs I write,
> obviously). I certainly couldn't tell you off-hand the differences
> among $< $> $( and $). I'd have to l
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
> > that "use English" was a waste of time and effort, a bandaid trying to
&
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
> > and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
> Y'know, I couldn't have said t
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> It has nothing to do with improving the syntax though, because everything
> in use English is a variable that serves as a reference to some other
> variable.
Yes, and that's why I really think it's a waste of time. ;-)
> > I'm not v
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:11:30PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Yes, but perhaps a little bit of both. Truthfully, I've always seen long
> alternatives as useless bloat, not used widely over the long term. Once
> people learn the shortcuts, they use them.
>
> Expunging &q
> > My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> > the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> > number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
> > guts to write
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> > the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> >
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> number of mistakes that people can make. But I&#x
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
> and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
[snip]
> I've yet to understand why I'd *want* to use English regularly; so far as
> I c
47 matches
Mail list logo
