Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 06:47:39PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Mind you (purely devil's advocate), I'm not entirely sure the R-to-L
>> > syntax truly _needs_ to be in Perl6. It's true I use it all the time,
>> > but I can retrain to use L-to-R method calls with little effort.\
>>
>> Personally I really don't like the L to R style;
>
> That's ok. Personally, I do. You find R2L easier to read, I find L2R
> easier. TIMTOWDI. Perl6 should be smart enough to support both.
>
>>I know we've got it
>> for C<< for ... -> $a { ... } >>, but I can see the logic behind
>> that, otherwise L to R looks worryingly like C++ to me.
>
> I'm not convinced that language snobbery is a good reason to include
> or exclude a feature from Perl6. And, if there is logic in having L2R
> in one case (for), why shouldn't we generalize it to be useful (or at
> least possible) in all cases?
>
>
>> > If we have a post-given, e.g. C<map {...} given @a> or C<map {...} is
>> > given @a>, I think that gives us R-to-L without any special {...}
>> > rules at all.
>>
>> No, just the addition of much ugliness to code for no gain in
>> readability. And one more area where Perl 6 fails to look like Perl 5
>> for no good reason.
>
> Personally, I'm not fond of the specific syntax that MikeL is
> suggesting.
I haven't been arguing against his syntax for adding L to R
pipelines, but against the damage he proposes doing to R to L syntax.
> However, I think that L2R is valuable enough that it should make it
> into the language, and I don't have a better suggestion.
Well, L2R is really easy:
@ary.map({...}).grep(rx/.../).whatever(...);
For ugly values of 'really easy' of course.
