Larry Wall wrote:
> It's only a problem when some tries to write
>
> .=#( ... :-)
[tries to grok the meaning of "$foo.=#(Hello, World!)"]
[fails]
> : All true. But it avoids the headache of figuring out whether "..#" is
> : supposed to parse as a double-dot followed by a line-gobbling commen
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 08:11:04PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > I really prefer the form where .#() looks like a no-op method call,
: > and can provide the visual dot for a postfix extender.
:
: Although inline and multiline comments are very likely to be used in
: situation
Will Coleda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> There is still some usage in unmaintained language implementations:
> >>
> >> BASIC/compiler unmaintained ?
> >> BASIC/interpreter unmaintained ?
> >> forth unmaintained ?
> >> miniperlunmaintained ?
> >> parakeet
Larry Wall wrote:
> I really prefer the form where .#() looks like a no-op method call,
> and can provide the visual dot for a postfix extender.
Although inline and multiline comments are very likely to be used in
situations where method calls simply aren't appropriate:
.#(+---+
| Hello! |
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 06:31:44PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Delimiter-terminated quotes. Really nice idea.
:
: I'd put the dot inside the comment: "#.x", with x being an optional
: quote delimiter (excluding dots). If a delimiter is included, the
: comment is terminated by the matching quot
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:00:29PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > Jonathan wrote:
> > > If a delimiter is included, the
> > > comment is terminated by the matching quote delimiter; if absent, the
> > > comment is terminated by the next dot.
> >
> > But if one is going t
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 7 19:15:01 2006
New Revision: 8610
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Embedded comments are much more generally useful than long dots, especially
when formatted to look good as a pseudo .method call.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
===
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> Okay, after attempting and failing to take a nap, I think I know
LW> what's bugging me about "long dot". It seems just a little too
LW> specific.
does this mean you are at the dawning of your dot.age?
i couldn't resist! :)
uri
-
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> But if one is going to go this route (and I'm not sure that we should),
> then when the delimiter is absent have the comment terminate at
> the first non-whitespace character.
...which makes "#.\s" good only for inserting whitespace where it
normally wouldn't belong. O
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 06:31:44PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Delimiter-terminated quotes. Really nice idea.
>
> I'd put the dot inside the comment: "#.x", with x being an optional
> quote delimiter (excluding dots). If a delimiter is included, the
> comment is terminated by the matching quot
Delimiter-terminated quotes. Really nice idea.
I'd put the dot inside the comment: "#.x", with x being an optional
quote delimiter (excluding dots). If a delimiter is included, the
comment is terminated by the matching quote delimiter; if absent, the
comment is terminated by the next dot.
$x#
Okay, after attempting and failing to take a nap, I think I know what's
bugging me about "long dot". It seems just a little too specific.
So here's another proposal. We've been saying forever that we don't
need start/stop comments. But maybe, just maybe, if they also cure the
delayed postfix pr
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:23:32AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Author: bernhard
> Date: Thu Apr 6 11:23:31 2006
> New Revision: 12129
>
> Modified:
>trunk/src/spf_render.c
>
> Log:
> Make some string formating test failures go away under
> Linux on i686.
> However I have no what had ca
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:11:15PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:04:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > : +The long dot form of the C<...> postfix is C<0. ...> rather than
: > : +C<0. > because the
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:11:15PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:04:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : +The long dot form of the C<...> postfix is C<0. ...> rather than
> : +C<0. > because the long dot eats the first dot after the whitespace.
> : +It does not foll
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:04:38PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: +The long dot form of the C<...> postfix is C<0. ...> rather than
: +C<0. > because the long dot eats the first dot after the whitespace.
: +It does not follow that you can write C<0> because that would
: +take the first t
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 7 13:04:37 2006
New Revision: 8609
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
More long dot cleanup.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod(or
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:36:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 3/27/06, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > The p5-to-p6 translator will turn
: >
: > local $x;
: >
: > into
: >
: > temp undefine $x;
:
: Are you sure that that's not:
:
: undefine temp $x;
:
: It seems to me t
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 7 12:26:35 2006
New Revision: 8608
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Simplified postfix/infix parsing policy to use "long dot".
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc
Author: larry
Date: Fri Apr 7 11:53:34 2006
New Revision: 8607
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
Log:
Reduce now defined directly in terms of list operators, possibly autogenerated.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
=
Author: leo
Date: Fri Apr 7 09:59:18 2006
New Revision: 12135
Modified:
trunk/docs/pdds/clip/pddXX_exceptions.pod
Log:
fix exception example
Modified: trunk/docs/pdds/clip/pddXX_exceptions.pod
==
--- trunk/docs/pdds/
On Friday 07 April 2006 10:48, demerphq wrote:
> On 4/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > eval { dereference_somehow( $thingie ) }
> Sure, thats what i was saying elsewhere too. But I dont consider that
> a reasonable solution. Consider if dreferencing it means executing it
> and its
On Apr 6, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Will Coleda wrote:
On Apr 6, 2006, at 5:08 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:04:06PM -0700, Bernhard Schmalhofer via
RT wrote:
Hi,
as far as I see, the Perl* PMCs are no longer used in the Parrot
core.
Thanks, Bernhard.
There is s
On 4/7/06, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 07 April 2006 05:32, demerphq wrote:
>
> > Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> > operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> > but that only tells you the objects underlying intrin
On Friday 07 April 2006 05:32, demerphq wrote:
> Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> but that only tells you the objects underlying intrinsic type, it
> doesnt tell you if you can dereference the
On Friday 07 April 2006 06:43, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> I still wonder what’s bad about using
>
> UNIVERSAL::can( $foo, "can" )
>
> as a pre-Scalar::Util-compatible replacement of
>
> blessed( $foo )
>
> that is, purely as a boolean test where only the truthness of the
> return value is of in
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:17:21PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 14:04, Bernhard Schmalhofer via RT wrote:
>
> > 'punie' seems to be the only maintained language implementation using
> > Perl* PMCs.
>
> What about Ponie?
Ponie isn't using them.
Nicholas Clark
* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07 13:25]:
> Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over
> UNIVERSAL::isa/can nobody should be under the impression that
> using the functions directly is in any way a good thing.
>
> The only cases for which it's genuinely useful is asking
> "igno
David Wright wrote:
Your $thingy could be a hashref, in which case $thingy->isa will die.
The point of the discussion is that you should be checking if $thingy is
blessed() first, as UNIVERSAL::isa breaks for objects that masquerade as
other objects (e.g. via an adaptor pattern).
I've been
On 4/7/06, Ricardo SIGNES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07T08:32:35]
> > Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> > operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> > but that only tells you the objects underlyi
On 4/7/06, David Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, demerphq wrote:
>
> > On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
> >> nobody should be under the impression that using the functions directly
* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-07T08:32:35]
> Actually afaik there is no good way to find out what dereferencing
> operators an object supports. The best that I know of is reftype(),
> but that only tells you the objects underlying intrinsic type, it
> doesnt tell you if you can dereferenc
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, demerphq wrote:
On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
nobody should be under the impression that using the functions directly
is in any way a good thing.
The only cases for which it's genuine
On 4/7/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just because I (repeatedly) attack chromatic over UNIVERSAL::isa/can
> nobody should be under the impression that using the functions directly
> is in any way a good thing.
>
> The only cases for which it's genuinely useful is asking "ignoring wh
David Cantrell wrote:
chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 06 April 2006 17:53, Adam Kennedy wrote:
UNIVERSAL::isa/can when called as a function does a very specific thing,
and one that is often misunderstood.
... and never correct, in the face of proxy objects, blessed objects,
overloading, and ties.
chromatic wrote:
On Thursday 06 April 2006 17:53, Adam Kennedy wrote:
UNIVERSAL::isa/can when called as a function does a very specific thing,
and one that is often misunderstood.
... and never correct, in the face of proxy objects, blessed objects,
overloading, and ties.
I disagree. In part
Moin,
On Friday 07 April 2006 02:55, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > I use 5.8.0 as minimum, but for unicode I think it should be 5.8.1 -
> > but I am unsure. COuld you give a reason for why specifically 5.8.3?
>
> Actually, in consultation with Audrey and other $experts,
> Perl::MinimumVersion applies a
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
Sure, that one might be obvious, but quick, tell me what these mean:
say .bar
say .()
say .1
when .bar
when .()
when .1
foo .bar
foo .()
foo .1
.foo .bar
.foo .()
.foo .1
I'd rather have a rule you don't have to think abo
On 06/04/06, Sean Sieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is parrot broken? I am getting an error that reads,
> config.fpmc is truncated.
You'll probably find that runtime/parrot/include/config.fpmc is zero
bytes, in which case try removing it and rerunning make. If the
problem persists, there's a pro
On Thursday 06 April 2006 21:21, Andy Lester wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Sean Sieger wrote:
> > Done. May I submit the duplications a dupe at a time?
> How many are there? I think I'd prefer to see a whole list.
Depending on the size of the list, I agree -- it might be easier to see
Good points there... Here's my two cents (and a bit).
0) Not explicitly highlighted, Selenium Core generates an XML file with a full
description of its API; this is enough information to generate copious javadoc,
ndoc, rdoc, pydoc, or POD perldoc. We should use it for something perl-ish, one
wa
41 matches
Mail list logo
