On Monday 21 January 2002 11:14, Larry Wall wrote:
> So I'm not terribly interested in going out of my way to make statement
> blocks parse exactly like terms in an ordinary expressions. If it
> happens, it'll probably be by accident.
That's fine. (And I agree.) All I really cared about was ma
Larry Wall writes:
: This is only slightly less problematic than
:
: NEXT $coderef;
:
: which in turn is only slightly less problematic than
:
: if $condition $coderef;
Actually, that'd probably have to be:
if $condition, $coderef;
Still not sure if that has any possibility of ac
Larry wrote:
> : One way to do that would be to define POST and NEXT to return their
> : own (single, closure) argument. So then you could write:
> :
> : NEXT POST { ... }
>
> As long as everyone realizes that that return happens at compile
> time...
Sorry, yes, I should have been explic
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
> : How does one enforce the no side-effects rule, and how deeply does it
> : traverse?
>
> Dunno. Could warn or fail on assignment to any non-lexical or
> non-local lexical as a start. Maybe we could warn or fail on
Brent Dax writes:
: Larry Wall:
: # I think we'd often
: # have people trying to write things like:
: #
: # my $coderef = sub { ... };
: # LAST $coderef;
: #
: # and then wondering why it says "Undefined LAST block" or some such.
:
: Maybe all of the [A-Z]+'s get defined each time the blo
Larry Wall:
# What I can't figure out is, when you write
#
# LAST $coderef;
#
# when would it actually do the %MY._LAST_list.push($coderef)?
# Unfortunately, I think it has to do it at compile time, or we can't
# guarantee that the LAST actually gets run if an exception is thrown
# early. And
Damian Conway writes:
: Graham Barr wrote:
:
: > If a POST is inside a loop, is it executed at the end of each
: > iteration or only when the loop exits ?
:
: Only on final exit.
:
: > If it is only when the loop exits, will it be possible to designate
: > a block to be multiple (eg both POST a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Sunday 20 January 2002 20:57, Larry Wall wrote:
: > I expect PRE and POST could inherit automatically according to the
: > usual rules of DbC, though how you implement that is something other
: > people have thought about more than me. I think that LAST doesn't
: >
Damian Conway wrote (apparently whilst on stupid pills):
> > Do KEEP and UNDO take the place of CATCH within a block? (ie, you
> > may either CATCH, or you may KEEP and UNDO, but not both?
>
> Correct. KEEP+UNDO = CATCH and you can only have one CATCH per block.
As Larry has already pointed ou
Graham Barr wrote:
> If a POST is inside a loop, is it executed at the end of each
> iteration or only when the loop exits ?
Only on final exit.
> If it is only when the loop exits, will it be possible to designate
> a block to be multiple (eg both POST and NEXT)
One way to do that would be to
Bryan C. Warnock asked:
> Is it POST, LAST or LAST, POST, at runtime?
LAST then POST I suspect. For reasons already given in someone else's
reply. But, just possibly: intermixed in reverse order of definition.
> How does one enforce the no side-effects rule, and how deeply does it
> traverse?
At 5:57 PM -0800 1/20/02, Larry Wall wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>: How does one enforce the no side-effects rule, and how deeply does it
>: traverse?
>
>Dunno. Could warn or fail on assignment to any non-lexical or
>non-local lexical as a start. Maybe we could warn or fail on method
>cal
On Sunday 20 January 2002 20:57, Larry Wall wrote:
> I expect PRE and POST could inherit automatically according to the
> usual rules of DbC, though how you implement that is something other
> people have thought about more than me. I think that LAST doesn't
> inherit. If you want to share commo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Is it POST, LAST or LAST, POST, at runtime?
Obviously you want to put the assertion checking after the cleanup,
so LAST, POST.
: How does one enforce the no side-effects rule, and how deeply does it
: traverse?
Dunno. Could warn or fail on assignment to any non-l
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
>
>
> Is it POST, LAST or LAST, POST, at runtime?
Since POST is checking invariants, and LAST can have side effects, LAST
must be executed before POST.
Apo 4 said POSTs were executed in the reverse of the order seen, I
presume that would hold for LAST as well.
> How
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:29:39AM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
> On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> > > Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
>
> Close and close. As of two days ago, Larry's thinking was:
>
> BEGIN Executes at the beginning of co
On Sunday 20 January 2002 08:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> > > Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
>
> Close and close. As of two days ago, Larry's thinking was:
>
Note to self: Program flow
> BEGIN Executes
On Sun, 20 January 2002, "Me" wrote
>
> - LAST
> (Per Damian's last (LAST/POST) post.)
Yup.
> - FIRST?
> (Symmetry.)
No. We feel that such code just goes at the start of the block. Of
course, there's an argument that you might have several entry points to
a block (via C labels) and still wan
On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> > Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
Close and close. As of two days ago, Larry's thinking was:
BEGIN Executes at the beginning of compilation
CHECK Executes at the end of compilation
On Sun 20 Jan, Me wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> > > Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
> > >
> > > BEGIN Executes at the beginning of compilation
> > > CHECK Executes at the end of compilation
> > > INIT Executes at the beginning of run
> > > EN
> On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> > Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
> >
> > BEGIN Executes at the beginning of compilation
> > CHECK Executes at the end of compilation
> > INIT Executes at the beginning of run
> > END Executes at the end of run
> > PRE Ex
On Saturday 19 January 2002 22:05, Brent Dax wrote:
> Is this list of special blocks complete and correct?
>
> BEGIN Executes at the beginning of compilation
> CHECK Executes at the end of compilation
> INITExecutes at the beginning of run
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
