>I happen to like $ and @. They're not going away in standard Perl as
>long as I have anything to do with it. Nevertheless, my vision for Perl
>is that it enable people to do what *they* want, not what I want.
>
>Larry
If only that were true...But it isn't true. It was never true. And you
knew
>Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
>now?
That must never happen. It can be stopped. It must be stopped. It will be
stopped.
(except for the Redmond part, which I suspect might be a bit hard on
*their* eyes)
Hillary
"You're nothing if not dramatic."
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 09:33 AM 5/9/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> >I think that's silly. You misuse a variable that requires an auto, the
> >compile dies, that's all. And macros can be very useful for an abstraction
> >layer that intended to *hide* the implementation.
> No, that's not the point of macros. When you find you have 5, or 10, or 20
> levels of substitution, it means you have a real problem somewhere. Macros
> should be simple. Fancy macros, or lots of little nested macros, show a
> lack of thought about the long term. It also contributes really b
At 09:36 PM 5/9/2001 -0400, Benjamin Sugars wrote:
>On Wed, 9 May 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 09:33 AM 5/9/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > >I think that's silly. You misuse a variable that requires an auto, the
> > >compile dies, that's all. And macros can be very useful for an
> a
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> So what you're saying is that references aren't really scalars,
> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
> But we've sort of run out of possible prefixes.
that is my interpretation of the p4->p5 decision to make references
fit within the scalar type; which
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:05:48PM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Will it be possible to define "pointer classes", a la C++, in a
> relatively "smooth" manner?
>
> That is, an object R has methods of its own as well as methods
> belonging to the "referred to" object?
Sounds you're looking for a
Will it be possible to define "pointer classes", a la C++, in a
relatively "smooth" manner?
That is, an object R has methods of its own as well as methods
belonging to the "referred to" object?
E_G: print "$R.toString is a reference to $R->toString";
Or some such? The notion of $R.getData.toStr
David Grove wrote:
...
> This is frightening me too. I really don't like the thought of
>
> $i = "1.0";
> $i += 0.1 if $INC;
> $i .= " Foo, Inc.";
>
> (or more specifically a one line version that converts several times for a
> single statement)
>
> becoming
>
> my str $i = "1.0";
> if($INC)
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 1:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Tying & Overloading
>> Helgason writes:
>> : I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
>> : more acceptable to the world of javacsharp
At 07:43 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
>: We'd want an alternative opcode running loop for all this, and it could
>: easily enough check times, as could special opcodes. Long-running codes
>: could also check at reasonable breakpoints. (Still in trouble with C
>: exten
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 24 Apr 2001 00:29:23 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>>How do you concatenate together a list of variables that's longer than one
>>line without using super-long lines? Going to the shell syntax of:
>>
>>PATH=/some/long:/bunch/of:/stuff
>>PATH="${P
> As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, "Horse hooey!"*
Camel cookies.
;-)
> These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
> would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
> engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
> profit. T
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > A scalar's a thing.
> Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Indeed, hashes have scalar keys. Did you not realise that I conveyed
the same information in amazingly less confusing terminology?
Again
At 09:33 AM 5/9/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Dave Mitchell writes:
>: | anyone know precisely what the following means?
>:
>: "K&R" style for indenting control constructs
>
>Strictly speaking, it means you always put the opening bracket on the
>same line as the keyword, and only worry about lini
A. C. Yardley writes:
> taken off list. (I don't mean to arrogant the decisional authority
Erh, make that arrogate ...
/acy
David Grove writes:
> Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
> coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
> considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
> not I don't remember) saying that, even if it l
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:04:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > A scalar's a thing.
>
> Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
Yes, but as Larry pointed out. Knowing if the index is to be treated
as a number or a string has some advantages for optimization
Gra
David Grove wrote:
> something similar to PHP's Array['text'] notation.
(I think awk, but whatever...)
my @collection is associative;
> since these will become actual objects in Perl 6,
> *how* they are indexed could be a simple flag
Or, in fact, any user-defined scheme.
> The re
Simon Cozens wrote:
> A scalar's a thing.
Just as the index into a multiplicity is a thing.
--
John Porter
"Core Perl" is probably trademarked to Sun Microsystems. ;-)
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: John L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a grain
> of sand - the beginnings of a pearl. Of course, nobody would have got
> it, so we went with a cat instead, which is even more oblique.
Hmmm, I suppose a blown-up grain of sand cou
> [...] subject to ethnic
> cleansing. Culture wars arise spontaneously, but that should not deter
> us from enabling people to build new cultures. [...]
Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
now?
};P
Dave Mitchell writes:
: My thinking behind "if fails on one, avoid on all" was that if it failed
: on at least one, then it may well fail on others that you dont have access
: to - either now or in the future, and thus perhaps isnt as good an optimisation
: as you figured. The other way would to b
Larry Wall writes:
: Dave Mitchell writes:
: : | anyone know precisely what the following means?
: :
: : "K&R" style for indenting control constructs
:
: Strictly speaking, it means you always put the opening bracket on the
: same line as the keyword, and only worry about lining up the closing
:
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Mitchell writes:
> : | my personal pet peeve: death to dSP and friends !!
...
> I think that's silly. You misuse a variable that requires an auto, the
> compile dies, that's all. And macros can be very useful for an abstraction
> layer that intended t
David Grove writes:
: Probably rehashing (no pun intended) a lost cause, but this sounds logical
: to me, if you're referring to something similar to PHP's Array['text']
: notation. I.e.,
:
: $array[1]
: $hash{'one'}
:
: becoming
:
: @group['one']
Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you don
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
> to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
>
> my $foo;
> my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
I tried working on a "pythonish" module built arou
> : For example, if your struct eventually needs more than
> : 32 flags, can it be gracefully expanded to more than a single word of
> : flags? Bear in mind that there may be code in other people's Perl
> : extensions and code that Perl itself is embedded in, all of which
> : may be using your stu
I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
my $foo;
my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
This sort of thing will only get easier in Perl 6, when people can pull
in their own grammatical rules to enable them to
> -Original Message-
> From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
>
>
> David Grove wrote:
> > $ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a
> multiplicity of pairs
Dave Mitchell writes:
: | anyone know precisely what the following means?
:
: "K&R" style for indenting control constructs
Strictly speaking, it means you always put the opening bracket on the
same line as the keyword, and only worry about lining up the closing
bracket:
: | my personal pet peev
> > But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
>
> Actually they do show "type", though not in a traditional sense.
> Organization <-> type is semantic oddery, but they do keep our heds
straight
> about what's in the variable.
Sure. But my point was that Perl's use of $ isn't Hungari
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:51:14AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
> by the semantics of its indexing.
Bah. You should try teaching this stuff! :)
A scalar's a thing. An array's a line of things. A hash is a bag of
pairs of things.
All
On Wed, 9 May 2001 11:06:45 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>>At that
>> point, Hungarian notation fell apart for me. Its strict use adds (IMO) as
>> much confusion as MicroSoft's redefinition of C, with thousands of
>> typedefs representing basic types ("LPSTR" and "HWND" come to mind as the
>> m
David Grove wrote:
> $ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity, and % is a multiplicity of pairs
> with likely offspring as a result. ;-)
Actually, % is also simply a multiplicity, differentiated only
by the semantics of its indexing.
Which is why I argued, some time back, in favor of conflating
a
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 08:21:10PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> What if, instead of cramming everything into "scalar" to the point
> where it loses its value as "a data type that magically converts
> between numeric and string, as needed," we undo the Great Perl5
> Dilution and undecorate refere
At 04:06 PM 5/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > oyster/clam/mussel shell "with association to the Perl language". The first
> > thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
> > is.
>
>I think all it wou
And there was me thinking the shiny ball must be a camel dropping
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 11:02:52AM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> oyster/clam/mussel shell "with association to the Perl language". The first
> thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
> is.
I think all it would demonstrate is how flawed the copyright system is.
Bu
/me ponders the use of a cat in that context... Furball?
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2 -
On Wednesday 09 May 2001 10:44, David Grove wrote:
> I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
> until I saw the actual compliance with that request culminate in a local
> variable named l_st_uliI. Of course, that's an "static unsigned int i"
> used as a simple itera
> >An object of type "abstracted reference to a chair" is _NOT_ an object of
> >type "numeric or string that magicly switches between as needed"
>
> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
> But we've sort of r
I've often thought about trademarking a Shiny Ball (Perl) and an
oyster/clam/mussel shell "with association to the Perl language". The first
thought is to give a demonstration on how rude holding this type of symbol
is. But, I'd have licensed it to the community openly after an initial snit.
I did
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:02:43PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> What he is proposing is that Perl6 would have a kind of variable that
> doesn't have a prefix. That isn't perlish IMO.
open OUT, ">foo" or die $!;
print OUT "Rubbish!\n";
close OUT;
OUT = STDERR; # Works in 5.7.1, I think.
(Incidenta
>
> > sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
> > language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
> > its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
>
> But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show "type", thoug
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 04:50:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> Several perl ports, and at least one book, use a "shiny ball" as a
> symbol.
> It took me a bit of thinking before I realized what this "shiny ball"
> represents. Odd.
Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a g
On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
>I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
>not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
>hump, it's not allowed. Or was that an alpaca with a llama...
>
>The RFC pleads for a community spirit from ORA. Barring t
> Hungarian notation is any of a variety of standards for organizing
> a computer program by selecting a schema for naming your variables
> so that their type is readily available to someone familiar with
> the notation.
I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
unt
Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
h
At 04:02 PM 5/9/2001 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>What he is proposing is that Perl6 would have a kind of variable that
>doesn't have a prefix. That isn't perlish IMO.
Sure it is. DEC BASIC let you do that (drop prefixes on variables declared
with types) and stealing from other languages is very p
[on David Nicol's thought that maybe references should be treated
differently than other scalar data]
>
>But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
>
Perhaps it's a mistake that Perl treats numbers and strings the
same. Perhaps "$" should be broken out into two prefixes: S for
string
On Wed, 9 May 2001 09:47:56 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
>
>No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
>
>> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
>> but their own type. T
Bart Lateur wrote:
> David L. Nicol wrote:
> >we undo the Great Perl5
> >Dilution and undecorate references.
>
> Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
No, that's the situation already. David is proposing a change.
> So what you're really saying is that refer
I really need to spell-check better.
>Undecorated if for function calls and methods. And buolt-ins, of course.
Undecorated is for function calls and methods. And built-ins, of course.
--
Bart.
> I see nothing about namespacing, e.g. Perl_
All entities should be prefixed with the name of the subsystem they appear
in, eg C, C. They should be further prefixed
with the word 'perl' if they have external visibility or linkage,
eg
perlpmc_foo()
struct perlio_bar
typedef struct perlio_bar
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:21:10 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>What if, instead of cramming everything into "scalar" to the point
>where it loses its value as "a data type that magically converts
>between numeric and string, as needed," we undo the Great Perl5
>Dilution and undecorate references.
Un
57 matches
Mail list logo
