In Perl 5 C is quite natural for iterating over lists and arrays.
C is preferred for filehandles. With lazy evaluation this
difference has been eliminated in Perl 6 so that while still TMTOWTDI
(TAEMWTDI!) this kind of iterations will be more consistent.
But in Perl 5 to "navigate" complex str
This is not a substantial issue regarding Perl 6, but is more a minor
feature curiosity/meditation. It was inspired some time ago by this PM
node:
http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=509310
I was wondering if in addition to push(), pop() etc. there could be be
rot() and roll() methods that would ac
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
On a separate but related matter, I'm in the position of wanting to do
something unusual, which is create a data file format whose content is
executable perl code that defines a data structure, a hash of whatever.
Kind of like how XML works except tha
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Juerd wrote:
while $x-- && some_condition($x) {}
Here, while is being passed a hash
Why? Doesn't while's signature specifically prescribe a sub there, and
if it does, then wouldn't it be just a bit too silly to stick to {}
being a hash?
Well, as hinted in my other ma
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, TSa wrote:
Luke Palmer wrote:
Recently, I believe we decided that {} should, as a special case, be
an empty hash rather than a do-nothing code, because that's more
common.
Hmmm, OTOH a hash is a special kind of function, so it may also be
convenient to think of { item
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Michele Dondi wrote:
You have very strong arguments, but I think that Perl becoming more solid
should not come at the expense of practicity. Indeed the single warning I
Speaking of which:
| The connection between the language in which we think/program and the
| problems
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
1. I accept the proposal that we just make another class that implements the
SQL concept of a null value, perhaps named Null or SQL::Null, rather than
Somebody else suggested the nicely huffmanized 'nil', which IMHO sounds
definitely interesting, alth
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
Actually, I don't like autovivification either, and wish there was a pragma
to make attempts to do it a fatal error; it smacks too much of using
variables that weren't declared with 'my' etc. I prefer to put in the
What has the latter to do with auto
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
Undef means "don't know", which is distinct from "zero", because in the
latter case we explicitly have a value of zero.
But when we don't know we can, and generally do, make reasonable
_guesses_.
Experience has shown that 0 or '' according the conte
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
An undefined value is NOT the same as zero or an empty string respectively;
the latter two are very specific and defined values, just like 7 or 'foo'.
[snip]
Therefore, I propose that the default behaviour of Perl 6 be changed or
maintained such that:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Piers Cawley wrote:
$fh = open '>>', 'quotefile' or fail;
$fh.print <<'EOQ'
Hmmm... 1/sqrt(2) * ( |Perl5> + |Perl6> ) ?
;-)
(I thought '>>' & C. were gone...)
Michele
--
We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs
to be done.
- Alan T
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Peter Scott wrote:
It seems strange to have a shortcut for 0..$n-1 but no shortcut for 0..$n.
IMHO the former is much more useful and common. Mathematically (say, in
combinatorics or however dealing with integers) when I happen to have to
do with a set of $n elements cha
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
The 'for' can go if a list (and also an array) would imply looping, when
it is positioned next to a block:
a. say (0..4);
b. { say; say } (0..4);
I'm not really sure: while I like it for its conciseness -and
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I would like to publicly apologize for my remarks, which were far too
harsh for the circumstances. I can only plead that I was trying to
be far too clever, and not thinking about how it would come across.
No, to be perfectly honest, it was more culpable th
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Perl 6 perlplexities
Michele Dondi worries that the increase in complexity of some aspects of
Perl 6 is much bigger than the increase in functionality that the
complexity buys us. In particular Michele is concerned that the Perl 6
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
That wasn't the intent; the intent was to define a
"something-or-other" C that represents the fact that whatever
does this sometimes behaves like a complexRectilinear and other times
behaves like a complexPolar. Even the underlying information (the
attr
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Eric wrote:
I think 'subset' might be a nicer colour for this bikeshed. For an
[snip]
Ehh. By that definition arn't all sets subsets? Anyway I didn't see
It depends on the axiomatic model of your choice. Speaking of which it is
perhaps not terribly OT to discuss here
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
For example, this is guaranteed to have the side effect of running
out of memory before it starts to print anything:
print **1...;
Speaking of which I wonder if it can be detected and cause an error to be
emitted. Which is to say, if it is possible f
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Juerd wrote:
Whatever, the new system by contrast seems to me to be at least 400%
more complex, but it won't buy me 400% more functionality.
It will buy you 400% in saving typing, 4000% in less debubbing and
4% in maintainability(==readability).
Of course drawing any
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, The Perl 6 Summarizer wrote:
Slightly tangentially to this, Dan Sugalski blogged a couple of weeks
ago about his successes and failures with Parrot. The comments are worth
reading -- there's a fair few more or less well founded complaints about
the way the Perl 6
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Juerd wrote:
for simple subs in Perl6 I will probably still use @_
You'd be a fool to do so, with the sole exception of list manipulation,
[snip]
Compare:
sub dosomething { @_[0] blah @_[1] }
sub dosomething ($a, $b) { $a blah $b }
sub dosomething { $^a blah $
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, TSa wrote:
"derived" from C. But Perl's C<++> already allows an extended syntax wrt
that of those other languages, that is: I'm not really sure, but I don't
[snip]
Actually I'm not sure if Perl 6 allows
($u *= 5)++;
Since I wrote "already", I was referring to Perl5..
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Nate Wiger wrote:
just to be sure we're on the same page: You say that the thing that
is going to hinder migration to Perl 6 is the fact that it's different
from Perl 5.
Intentionally trite oversimplification. My problem is that it's
different in some ways which are no
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
I think the difference comes from the Principle of Least Surprise. The
various operators being discussed in this thread are all operators
which are in languages that have common use - C, C++, Java, the .Net
stack, etc. Regexen and the various built-ins are g
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, John Williams wrote:
surprises including operandless operators. Including mutating operandless
operators. What is s/// after all? Or is there a good reason for an
asymmetry between different classes of operators?
Well, s/// is a term, for one thing.
It is not so much an op
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Sam Vilain wrote:
That being said, there are probably other more pressing reasons that ops
should not accept $_ as default; I would guess, for a start, it makes
determining semantics very difficult. Does ++; mean &postfix:<++> or
&prefix:<++> ?
If we had it, I think we wo
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/17556
I understand that Perl6 allows blocks with changed/enhanced syntax, so
it is or will become possible (to add it) as if it was in the core
language.
Do I understand that right? Something as sim
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, John Williams wrote:
But IMHO the reduction in typing for this relatively minor issue is not
really worth the surprise to newbies at seeing operandless operators.
I don't buy that argument as newbies are already exposed to all sorts of
surprises including operandless oper
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Christopher D. Malon wrote:
For the non-mathematically inclined:
A field is a set with two binary operations, + and *.
Under either operation (+ or *), the set is an abelian (= commutative) group,
and a field has a distributive property: a * (b + c) = a*b + a*c.
An easy exam
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Or RPN-like:
$x #= 2* 1+ 3/;
Being a big fan of RPN myself (and considering it quite natural), I'd
appreciate very much such a feature. I had asked myself about RPN features
in P6, albeit in a probably unreasonable fashion:
http://www.nntp.pe
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Darren Duncan wrote:
Not sure if this matter was resolved on a previous discussion, but here goes
Definitely is has been discussed at least once, that I know, for I asked
this myself, but from a somewhat more mathematical pov. You can find a
copy of my mail here:
http:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
I'd like to take this moment and point to my somewhat hand-wavy
metamodel proposal from last week. When Stevan and I were talking
about this, we called it a "quark." "Atom" also works quite nicely,
but quarks are cooler.
They're also colorful. Does this m
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
But we're trying to design the OO features (indeed, all of Perl 6)
such that you can usefully cargo cult those aspects that are of
immediate interest without being forced to learn the whole thing.
It's not the number one design goal, but it's right up there
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
for (1..9) -> $n { # ought to be more than enough
eval qq[
macro prefix:<\$_$n> { "\${ "OUTER::" x $n }_" }
];
}
And then you can use $_1 .. $_9. I think $_1 is much clearer than $__,
but I think neither is needed in the standard
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Stevan Little wrote:
Well, the point is that it is interesting to note that "text processing"
is an _application area_, whereas "OO programming" is a programming
language paradigm.
Allow me to clarify.
Perl 5 (and below) are known by outsiders (non-perl users) as bein
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
Michele Dondi skribis 2005-10-25 17:05 (+0200):
Now, one that I've sometimes desired is a "two level" $_, i.e. a variable,
say, $__ referring to the _second next_ enclosing lexical scope. I am
aware that in this vein one may ask a third analogue
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
Reducing line noise isn't my goal, though. I feel that the implicit
defaulting to $_ makes Perl a more natural and elegant language, and
would like this principle being extended to these operators.
Indeed, both the implicit defaulting to $_ AND the availabilit
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
On 10/25/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it'd be great if +=, ~=, +&=, ++, etc, could all assume $_ on
their LHS when there is no obvious operand.
[snip]
Especially bare ++ would be useful, I think.
Did you post this specifically to anti-a
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Stevan Little wrote:
I think Perl 6's OO system has the potential to be to OO programming what
Perl 5, etc was to text processing. This, I believe, is in large part due to
Sorry for replying so late. Thought it seems appropriate to post this in
this time of "Perl 6 fears"
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
FEAR: Perl6 will not be able to fix the stigma of "just a scripting
language" or "line noise"
perl5 has never been "just a scripting language"
But sadly enough it is often _perceived_ as such. And also like "line
noise", as the person you're answer
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we find a lot of yen signs as zip-operators in the standard
library, Japanese would have a big question: "Give up either
Perl6 or Windows. Which do we need?" And I suppose the answer
Hmmm, begins to sound interesting... ;-P
Michele
--
voices
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Rutger Vos wrote:
_one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well,
and is even more visually distinctive with most fonts I know of, afaict,
so is there any good reason to keep the latter as the "official" one?!?
Do you even need to ask? It's beca
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
Huh? So you want to go back to Perl 5's arrow? *Anybody* coming to
Perl 6 from some non-Perl 5 language is going to be more comfortable
with dot.
(Also, I did like the arrow notation, but) how cool would be
@cool=grep ->cool, @misc; # if compared to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
: > c| or C| maybe.
[snip]
: if $foo eq c|d { ... }
Other suggestions welcome.
<| maybe? And what will we make |> do?
Michele
--
Se non te ne frega nulla e lo consideri un motore usa e getta, vai
pure di avviatore, ma e' un vero delitto. Un po' c
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Juerd wrote:
All non-ASCII operators have ASCII equivalents:
¥ Y
« <<
» >>
Speaking of which the advantage of, say, « over << is that the former is
_one_ charachter. But Y, compared to ¥, is one charachter only as well,
and is even more visually distincti
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Eric wrote:
I'd just like to say that I find B a bit misleading because you couldn't
tell that the first list ended, it could just have undef's at the end. I
Well, OTOH undef is now a more complex object than it used to be, so there
may be cheap workarounds. Of course one
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
language like C. So, such a "sensitive" modifier could be added, but its
precise meaning would be highly dependent on the underlying
implementation.
It would be of interest more to a perl programmer than to a Perl
programmer. Like keys() as an l
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
Cheers,
Joshua Gatcomb
a.k.a. Limbic~Region
Oops... I hadn't noticed that you ARE L~R...
Michele
--
Your ideas about Cantorian set theory being awful suffer from the
serious defect of having no mathematical content.
- Torkel Franzen in sci.math, "
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, Joshua Gatcomb wrote:
I have mocked up an example of how you could do this in p5 with some ugly
looking code:
You may be interested to know that this has had an echo at
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=493826
mostly misunderstood in the replies, IMHO. Basically
Every time I've desired a feature for Perl6 it has turned out that either
it was already planned to be there or I have been given good resons why it
would have been better not be there.
Now in Perl(5) {forum,newsgroup}s you can often see people doing stuff
like
my @files=grep !/^\.{1,2}/,
(Sorry for replying _so_ late...)
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I kinda like Autrijus's idea that "meta" just means "guts". In
classical Greek, "meta" just means "with". The fancy philosophical
meaning of "aboutness" isn't there, but is a backformation from
terms such as metaphysics.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, [ISO-8859-1] "TSa (Thomas Sandla?)" wrote:
value to carry on a useless imaginary part. And
Complex should consistently return undef when compared
to other Nums or Complexes. And the Compare role
My 0.02+0.01i: in mathematics it is commonly used to write e.g. z<3 to
mean "
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
no, if I understood Larry correctly, you can of course write a nice
grammar-modifying module, but other modules you use() still use
Perl 6's standard grammar. E.g.:
Ah, then of course I would have never expected things to be different at
all.
I
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
Good, I'd forgotten about that. Which means that it's even harder
for someone to compile a module in a "strange" dialect, since they'd
essentially have to write their own version of "use" that forces
recompilation ("reuse", if you will). And the harder we
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Robin Redeker wrote:
I wasn't thinking 'cool', I was thinking 'visually distinctive and
mnemonic'. I actually think o. is cooler.
Yes, i would like o. more too. At least it doesn't introduce
a completly meaningless '/' preceded by a '.'.
Hmmm... I am one of those who lik
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, [iso-8859-2] BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
Where should I ask, that what's PGE means? Yes, I know, it's Parrot Grammar
Engine, and I know what it is, but a beginnner maybe not. And I think that
Which makes me think that first or later it may be worth to start a FAQ
for questions
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Stuart Cook wrote:
On 6/1/05, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should {} be an empty hash rather than an empty code?
Given that an empty hashref is probably much more useful than an empty
block, I propose that {} be an empty hash and {;} be an empty block.
Speaking
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
I read that (mathematically) as "for all i, for all j such that j-i=1,
a_i
Yep, it sure is. Now tell Perl to read it that way for any operator.
Should _I_?!? ;-)
I wonder what a logic-oriented programming language a' la prolog would say
in this case.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
$ordered = [<] @array;
If @array is empty, is $ordered supposed to be true or false? It
certainly shouldn't be anything but those two, because < is a boolean
operator.
I read that (mathematically) as "for all i, for all j such that j-i=1,
a_i
Why sh
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
The continuing exchanges regarding junctions, and the ongoing tendency
by newcomers to think of them and try to use them as sets, makes
me feel that it might be worthwhile to define and publish a standard
C class and operations sooner rather than la
On Tue, 24 May 2005, wolverian wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
But I like the newly suggested "feather" better, as it can relate to
pugs AND parrot.
Feather is best one thus far, I think. I like carrot too; it's more
playful. I equate Pugs with fun a lot.
Hmmm,
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
Icelandic: laukur (Incidentally, none of you will ever guess how to
correctly pronounce that.)
Incidentally, would 'laukurdottir' be a proper Icelandic offence? :-)
Michele
--
Me too. If it's any comfort, just think of the design of Perl 6 as
a
On Tue, 24 May 2005, wolverian wrote:
Portuguese: cebola
Finnish: sipoli
Italian: cipolla (since nobody has mentioned it yet)
Michele
--
It was part of the dissatisfaction thing. I never claimed I was a
nice person.
- David Kastrup in comp.text.tex, "Re: verbatiminput double spacing"
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Rob Kinyon wrote:
1) undef (which may or may not contain an exception), or
2) some unit/identity value that is a trait of the operator,
depending on whether or not people think (2) is actually a good idea.
I would think that the Principle of Least Surprise points to (1),
I don'
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
All~
What does the reduce metaoperator do with an empty list?
Interesting. Mathematically an empty sum is zero and an empty product is
one. Maybe each operator {c,s}hould have an associated method returning
its neutral element for [] to use it on empty list
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Stuart Cook wrote:
What I refer to now is something that takes two {coderefs,anonymous
subs,closures} and returns (an object that behaves like) another anonymous
sub, precisely the one that acts like the former followed by the latter
(or vice versa!).
Do you mean like the mathem
I had implicitly touched on this in the past, but speaking of binops - and
of functional features in Perl6, is there any provision of a (list
associative?) composition binop?
I had naively thought about ==> and/or <==, but that's somewhat on a
different level.
What I refer to now is something
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
I second that. By all means! (But I thin it would be desirable to have a
'plain' reduce operator as well)
Michele
--
The re
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-04-26 through 2005-05-03
^^
^^
Wow!
Michele
--
Why should I read the fucking manual? I know how to fuck!
In fact the problem is that the fucking manual only gives you
theoretica
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
: perl -lne 'print if -e :q'
It seems to me that -e «$_» would handle most of these cases, as long as
whitespace always comes in quoted so that you always end up with one word.
I would say this is hardly the case for the kind of file lists I was
referring to.
Are the -X functions still going to be there? I definitely hope so!
However, to come to the actual question, it has happened to me to have to
do, in perl5 that is:
perl -lne 's/^"//;s/"$//;print if -e'
or (less often)
perl -lne '$o=$_;s/^"//;s/"$//;print $o if -e'
Ok: no much harm done (to my fi
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, [ISO-8859-2] BÁRTHÁZI András wrote:
I'm just wondering, if the following would be possible with Perl 6 or not?
XML
$a=Content #1Content #2;
[snip]
The ideas coming from Comega, the next version of CSharp(?). Here's an intro
about it:
Some time ago I asked a somewhat related qu
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
Python on Parrot
^^
Kevin Tew wondered what the state of pyrate was. Sam Ruby provided a
general explanation.
(I'm not on all of the lists, so this may have come out before and I j
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 Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
: > o.frobme(...)
:
: How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell to tell from C<..>?
: (Mnemonic reminder: '.'=myself, '..'=my mom - poor analogy, actually!)
:
: How 'bout a single underscore? _.frobme()?!?
Thought about those in the night, but they don'
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
really short alias for $self. Suppose we pick "o" for that, short
for "object". Then we get self calls of the form:
o.frobme(...)
How 'bout ..frobme(...)? Or would it be a hell to tell from C<..>?
(Mnemonic reminder: '.'=myself, '..'=my mom - poor analogy
I am aware of at least one program that adopts XML for
(customizable/"skinnable") GUI descriptions. This has a sense for markup
languages are typically "descriptive", i.e. they say how something IS as
opposed to, say, procedural languages that let one implement something
that DOES something[1].
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, [UTF-8] Thomas SandlaÃ~_ wrote:
'Co' means together like in coproduction. And 'contra' is the opposite
'Streaming of digestive byproducts'? ;-)
Sorry for the OT - couldn't resist! This pun fir
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:32:15PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: ...then you've got the notion of Fuzzy Logic Sets, where the key would be
[snip]
But using values for degree of membership is an interesting idea.
On the other hand, if we ever have numeric datat
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
There are a couple of problems: first, a hash's keys are limited to
strings; a set ought to be able to handle a wider range of data types.
Well, if I had learnt something about Perl6 it is that it is no longer
necessarily so.
Michele
--
It's also amazing
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Michele Dondi wrote:
Speaking of which, while I think that methods on the implicit topicalizer and
the C<.=> assignement operator are indeed cool, I wonder if any provision
will be made for a convenient stand in for "whatever is on the left side of
an assignme
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jonathan Lang wrote:
If we want Sets in Perl, we should have proper Sets.
I'll agree, depending on what you mean by "proper". I'd be interested in
having some means to perform set operations in perl6: unions,
intersections, differences, membership checks, and subset/superse
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Damian Conway wrote:
@xyz = uniq @xyz;
or better still:
@xyz.=uniq;
Speaking of which, while I think that methods on the implicit topicalizer
and the C<.=> assignement operator are indeed cool, I wonder if any
provision will be made for a convenient stand in for "wh
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
Modular Programming
David
I think it's Metaprogramming. :)
The only thing that sprung to my mind was "MetaPost"...
Michele
--
No one can ever predict all of the possible error conditions, of course;
as soon as we write idiot-proof code, along comes a bet
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
roadblocks thrown in their way. That's true not only for LP, but
also for FP, MP, XP, AOP, DBC, and hopefully several other varieties
^^ ^^^
^^ ^^^
1. 2.
Ehmmm... sorry for the ignorance, but...
1. Fu
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, you can certainly intermix them as long as you keep your
precedence straight with parentheses. Though I suppose we could go
as far as to say that = is only scalar assignment, and you have to
use <== or ==> for list assignment. That would be...interesting
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Matt Fowles wrote:
pipe dreams
Juerd wondered if he could mix = and ==> in a sane way. The answer
appears to be no. Once you bring in ==> you should stick with it.
Huh?!? It doesn't seem to me that the answer is 'no'. In fact C<< ==> >>
is supposed to be yet another ope
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Juerd wrote:
Does this make sense?
my @words = gather {
for =(open '/usr/share/dict/words' err die) {
.=chomp;
next if /<-[a-z]>/;
/$re/ and take { word => $_, score => %scores{ .letters }.sum };
}
} ==> sort { . } is descendi
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, James Mastros wrote:
OTOH, I realize now you can do that with zip in P6, in which case you do have
a mention of the whole variable to stick a my on -- C I think C reads better though, even
though looking at it literally, you're attempting to lexicalize an element.
But dealin
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
#!/usr/bin/perl -e
$x = 1;
Is this supposed to work? I would tend to consider it counter intuitive...
#!/usr/bin/perl
v6; $x = 1;
Incidentally, and on a totally OT basis, I've noticed that Perl6 is
supposed to have v-strings. But (current) 'perldoc perld
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
to return an infinite list, or even
return 0..., 0...;
to return a surreal list. Either of those may be bound to an array
Hope not to bark something utterly stupid, but... if one iterates over
such a list, may it be that on the first C one really starts ov
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
Well, there's always "domain" and "range", if we want to be
mathematical.
[snip]
What you want here is "domain" and "codomain". Which leads me to
believe that you don't want either.
For the record, in most connections "range" would be just as good. Indeed
"
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Matthew Walton wrote:
At least we had the sense to call them subroutines instead of functions.
Of course, that also upset the mathematicians, who wanted to call them
functions anyway. Go figure.
That might be because the mathematicians haven't heard of a variant of a
function
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So optimizing to a state variable won't necessarily help your loop
overhead, but it could help your subroutine overhead, at least in Perl
5, if Perl 5 had state variables. Best you can do in Perl 5 is an
"our
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 06:43:05PM +, Herbert Snorrason wrote:
: This whole issue kind of makes me go 'ugh'. One of the things I like
: best about Perl is the amazing simplicity of the <> input construct.
Hmm.
while (<>) {...}
for .lines {...}
Looks l
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 01:11:30AM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: What happens to the flip flop operator? Will .. in scalar context remain
: the same?
I don't think so. It's definitely a candidate for a longer
Huffmanization simply in terms of frequency of use. On top
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Dave Whipp wrote:
Juerd point out (private email) that my example doesn't really make any
sense in that it doesn't do anything over and above s/take/push.
However, I think the concept of multiple bins could still be useful. My
What about an adverb? Hope not to say anything utte
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, David Ross wrote:
I have been studying PERL 5 core and modules to identify options and
issues for meta-architectures and automated code generation. PERL 6
documents and discussion provide insight essential to effectively using
PERL 5 and preparing for PERL 6.
[snip]
developing
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: No, it means Larry's about to stun us with something seemingly bizarre
: and inexplicable which turns out to be a stroke of genius.
The only bizarre and inexplicable thing that has occurred to me in the
last week is that I fell into a canal in Venice. It wa
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
Yes: no traffic at all for quite a while...
Does this mean that we're done? :)
By any means... I don't think so! I wonder if this could in any way
support what occasionally trolls claim e.g. in clpmisc, i.e. that the Perl
community is devoted to the c
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
