On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:33:20PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Taking lazy as far as we can, has anyone been thinking about
> a compilation mode in which all expensive accesses get deferred until
> there is a decision to be made? I know some functional languages
> (and Algol 68?) do this
Hask
I think you could only delay function calls automatically like this if you
could ensure that they are truely functional. That is, their output must
depend only on the arugments given and must have no mutation
side-effects. It seems to me that this is hard to guarantee in Perl, even
for the compi
So, you want method overloading, I take it? It is a very nice feature and
I've used it often in another language. Well, you basically can't have it
unless you have type checking of the arguments. And the more strong the type
checking, the less dangerous and the more effective the method overloa
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Graham asked:
>
>> IIRC there was some suggestion of a class being able to declare
>> elements to be accessable as methods in this was.
>>
>> So if $ref is of a known type and 'a' was declared in that way,
>> the parser would take $ref.a and turn it i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You may wish to read this thread about lazy arrays and object
> persistence to get an idea of what you're getting into.
> http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/3024/2001/3/0/5427925/
Taking lazy as far as we can, has anyone been thinking about
a compilation mode in whic
Vijay Singh wrote:
> >"Just how much $foo can dance on the head of a dot operator"
The current Annals Of Improbable Research (http://www.improb.com)
has a piece on applying modern physics to the age-old question, you
know, about the boogieing angels.
--
Coming to Perl 5 from a C++ background, I was greatly
disappointed, while writing a persistent object base
class and consulting my new, flat-lying Blue Camel (Second
edition, this was 1996), that the following kind of thing
did not do what I wanted:
sub argle($){
print
If you have not been following this thread, then maybe that is the reason for
the confused-sounding nature of your email.
I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a person", not
Vijay. I think Vijay was the one pointing out that this person ("Me") was
contributing to the di
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:20:20AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Subscripts don't fit here at all. And, in my option, shouldn't be made too.
Oh good, I was hoping you would say that; I misunderstood your message from
the 7th of June further up this thread to mean that dot was optional in
subscrip
> What I was asking, in a roundabout way, was if
> $foo.bar.baz
> makes sense; your answer suggests that it does. In which case, we can
> teach the parser that a property query is just like a method call is
> just like a hash or array element (with optional dereference if you're
Dave Whipp asks:
> Does it do short-circuit evaluation, too?
I would certainly expect it to, yes.
Damian
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 09:08:04AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Can properties have properties?
> No, but their scalar values can.
What I was asking, in a roundabout way, was if
$foo.bar.baz
makes sense; your answer suggests that it does. In which case, we can
teach the parser that a pr
Graham asked:
> IIRC there was some suggestion of a class being able to declare
> elements to be accessable as methods in this was.
>
> So if $ref is of a known type and 'a' was declared in that way,
> the parser would take $ref.a and turn it into $ref.{a}
This is intended. I'm n
> From: Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 4:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: suggested properties of operator results
> I think we will see n-ary comparisons allowed in Perl 6:
>
> if ($x < $y <$z < $foo) {...
>
> but as special case syntact
Simon asked:
> Are properties subscriptable? (Can the value of a property be a
> reference that can be dereferenced?)
Property values can be any scalar value, including array, hash, and code refs.
> Can properties have properties?
No, but their scalar values can.
Damian
Larry and I recently discussed chaining inequality operators.
He's in favour of it, but not of complex semantics involving
properties and implicit state (as I originally proposed in the
RFC)
I think we will see n-ary comparisons allowed in Perl 6:
if ($x < $y <$z < $foo) {...
but as sp
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:46 AM
> To: Vijay Singh
> Cc: Me; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Multi-dimensional arrays and relational db data
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:13:28PM -0800, Vijay Singh wrote:
> > Why
> Previously, on St. Elsewhere...
>
> Simon(e) writes...
> > But of course, I'm sure you already know what makes
> > good language design, because otherwise you wouldn't
> > be mouthing off in here...
>
> Why is it that "Me" is *mouthing off*, but you're not? Why is that?
> What makes you so *spec
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I don't think just /i should do that, as it seems rather extreme. (If you
> took that argument, it would seem to follow that KATAKANA LETTER A matches
> LATIN CAPITAL A, and I don't think we want to go there) The actual
> perl-leve
On Monday 11 June 2001 04:54 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Would it, or should it, be possible to tell m// to treat Katakana
> >characters as the same as hiragana characters, in much the same way as
> >m//i treats UPPERCASE the same as lowercase? Canonicalization won't get
> >you that.
>
> Yup, that
At 01:52 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
>In Japanese, ka and KA are two ways of writing the same syllable, in
>much the same way that LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A and LATIN SMALL LETTER A
>are. (Perhaps this is an argument for the /i modifier to apply to
>more than just case?)
I don't think ju
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:14:37PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't think canonicalization should do this. (I really hope not) This
> > isn't really a canonicalization matter--words written with one character
> > set aren't (AFAIK) the same as words
At 04:46 PM 6/11/2001 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>At 01:14 PM 06-11-2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > At 01:05 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> >> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >>> Should perl's regexes and other character com
At 04:43 PM 6/11/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > nice things about PL/SQL), but I would like to note that this statement,
> > while true, is effectively meaningless. Might as well say the same about
> > perl 5 because anyone who wa
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:05:43PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an option
> > to consider different characters for the same thing as identical beasts?
> > I'm thinking in particular of t
At 01:14 PM 06-11-2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > At 01:05 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an
> >>> option to consider differen
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 01:05 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an
>>> option to consider different characters for the same thing as
>>> identical beasts? I'
At 01:05 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an option
> > to consider different characters for the same thing as identical beasts?
> > I'm thinking in particular of the Katakana/Hira
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an option
> to consider different characters for the same thing as identical beasts?
> I'm thinking in particular of the Katakana/Hiragana bits of japanese,
> but other languages may have th
(I really need to pick up a printed copy of the 3.1 standard and set aside
a day and a bottle of aspirin, but until then...)
Should perl's regexes and other character comparison bits have an option to
consider different characters for the same thing as identical beasts? I'm
thinking in particu
At 04:43 PM 6/11/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > nice things about PL/SQL), but I would like to note that this statement,
> > while true, is effectively meaningless. Might as well say the same about
> > perl 5 because anyone who wa
> However, I don't think this actually affects your comments, except that
> I'd guess that the half digits mentioned by Hong don't have the same
> term "case" used with them that the letters of various alphabets do.
I am not sure if we mean the same thing. The regular ascii "0123456789"
are call
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> For example, the
> "going back in time and preventing your grandparents from having sex"
> situation.
Bah, who needs sex these days? A little in vitro here, a little
cloning with genetic tweaking there...a whole new person, no sex inv
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:20 PM 6/11/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:16:12AM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> > > At *runtime*? You won't need computed gotos or eval anymore. You just
> > have
> > > one block of generic-looking code and you change what the syn
Dave Storrs wrote:
> 2) This feature would be very prone to abuse (makes it easier to
> obfuscate code),
Whoa! Never thought I'd hear that! And computed function calls/adding things
to the namespace at runtime/rearranging the inheritance tree at runtime aren't
"very prone to abuse" !?
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> This is the kind of thing that can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily
> with external modules; ergo, it does NOT need to be in the core. Ergo,
> it probably *does* *not* *need* *discussing* *here*.
Much of the discussion on this list seems to concern what will be the
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> nice things about PL/SQL), but I would like to note that this statement,
> while true, is effectively meaningless. Might as well say the same about
> perl 5 because anyone who wanted to could hack toke.c.
OK, I'll put it another w
At 04:20 PM 6/11/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:16:12AM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> > At *runtime*? You won't need computed gotos or eval anymore. You just
> have
> > one block of generic-looking code and you change what the syntax means
> before
> > it exe
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:16:12AM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> At *runtime*? You won't need computed gotos or eval anymore. You just have
> one block of generic-looking code and you change what the syntax means before
> it executes. Three routines in one!
Before? Bah, woosy. *AS* it ex
At 10:26 PM 6/10/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>It doesn't matter, because the user can redefine the syntax anyway.
I'm staying completely out of the argument that spawned this (Though the
idea of welding SQL directly into perl has some appeal--it was one of the
few (okay, the only one I can
Me wrote:
> I don't think it's reasonable to say I propose you change
> something that hasn't yet been defined. Rather, it is
> precisely because you haven't yet defined the MD array
> syntax that I thought it worth at least considering how it
> parallels db data BEFORE you define it.
Considerin
Sam Tregar wrote:
> Perl 6 will allow you to mutate your syntax at runtime any way you want.
At *runtime*? You won't need computed gotos or eval anymore. You just have
one block of generic-looking code and you change what the syntax means before
it executes. Three routines in one!
Daniel
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 01:37:23AM -0500, Me wrote:
> > > B&D languages
> >
> > What's B&D?
>
> Bondage and Discipline, scum! You're not a good enough programmer to
> be trusted not to make mistakes! Now drop and give me fifty!
Hmmm...
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:42:53PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:31:36PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:34:49AM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> > >$input = 4;
> > >$bool = $input < 22;# $bool = 1 is valueR(22)
> > >print "ok!"
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:31:36PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:34:49AM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
> >$input = 4;
> >$bool = $input < 22;# $bool = 1 is valueR(22)
> >print "ok!" if $bool == 1; # whoops, '==' is looking at $bool.valueR
>
> Well per
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:34:49AM -0700, Chris Hostetter wrote:
>
> For the record, bwarnock pointed out to me that damian allready proposed
> this behavior in RFC 25...
>
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/25.html
>
> That RFC doesn't suggest having the comparison operators set properties
> on t
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 11:32:33AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> I'm about 3/4 the way through sv.c - I estimate another week before I'm
> done. The positive side effect is an impending patch that will add 500+
> lines of comments to sv.c.
Very cool! Thanks very much indeed.
--
You are in a maz
OK. My last addition to this painful thread.
> Your position depends on having a syntax so simple
> that it is somehow worth implementing as a native
> capability instead of the tied modules others have
> pointed out.
No it does not. I am not suggesting that a rdb modelling
tied version of MD ar
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > ACY's taking a look into this too, so you may want to co-ordinate to avoid
> > clashing. I've also told him what I'd like: something like this:
> >
> > Scalar
> > Strings
> > Ch
For the record, bwarnock pointed out to me that damian allready proposed
this behavior in RFC 25...
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/25.html
That RFC doesn't suggest having the comparison operators set properties
on their result -- instead it recomends that "multiple chained comparisons
should b
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:13:28PM -0800, Vijay Singh wrote:
> Why is it that "Me" is *mouthing off*, but you're not? Why is that?
> What makes you so *special*?
In "Me"'s defence, at least they do occasionally produce some useful
thoughts about Perl 6, and are not here simply for personal attac
51 matches
Mail list logo
