On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 09:52:34PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> What would be the expected output from the following?
>
> my $a = foo();
> my $b;
>
> {
> my $x = 1;
> sub get_x() { return $x; }
> sub foo() { return &get_x; }
> $b = foo();
>
Am Mittwoch, 26. Juli 2006 03:18 schrieb Ruud H.G. van Tol:
> Thomas Wittek schreef:
> >
> > What I wanted to say is that it would annoy me, if almost all
> > operators and control-flow keywords are lowercase but a hand full of
> > them has to be written uppercase.
Hi,
I suppose the above is a s
Thomas Wittek schreef:
> Actually I don't know all of them but most seem to be (part of)
> identifiers, not operators. Of course they are reserved words.
>
> What I wanted to say is that it would annoy me, if almost all
> operators and control-flow keywords are lowercase but a hand full of
> them
Markus Laire schrieb:
>> Operators/reserved words should be lowercase. Period. ;)
>> I think that this would heavily break consistency, annoying new users.
>
> There are already many uppercase reserved words in perl6:
>
> Pseudo-packages from S02
> MY, OUR, GLOBAL, OUTER, CALLER, CONTEXT, SUPER,
On 7/25/06, Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bearing that in mind, would the eye-socket-burning
>
> return $foo
> IF $something;
>
> really be so bad?
Operators/reserved words should be lowercase. Period. ;)
I think that this would heavily break consistency, annoying new users.
On 7/25/06, Thomas Wittek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bearing that in mind, would the eye-socket-burning
>
> return $foo
> IF $something;
>
> really be so bad?
Operators/reserved words should be lowercase. Period. ;)
I think that this would heavily break consistency, annoying new users.
> Bearing that in mind, would the eye-socket-burning
>
> return $foo
> IF $something;
>
> really be so bad?
Operators/reserved words should be lowercase. Period. ;)
I think that this would heavily break consistency, annoying new users.
-Thomas
On 7/22/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
> Maybe we should just make statement modifiers uppercase and burn out
> everyone's eye sockets. :)
...
Bearing that in mind, would the eye-socket-burning
return $foo
IF $something;
really be so bad?
This has
I know, shoot me -- but just so we've discussed it and put it to bed,
maybe :if or _if or fi?
--- Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall writes:
> > Maybe we should just make statement modifiers uppercase and burn
> out
> > everyone's eye sockets. :)
>
> I like statement modifie
Larry Wall writes:
> Maybe we should just make statement modifiers uppercase and burn out
> everyone's eye sockets. :)
I like statement modifiers, and I want them to continue to exist in Perl 6.
But it seems to me that a lot of the most awkward decisions about Perl 6
syntax are awkward precisely b
In a message dated Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Ruud H.G. van Tol writes:
Larry Wall schreef:
Maybe we should just make statement modifiers
uppercase and burn out everyone's eye sockets. :)
Or maybe
{
}.
while $x ;
Actually, can't that be made to work already (already by the language
spec, not
Larry Wall schreef:
> Maybe we should just make statement modifiers
> uppercase and burn out everyone's eye sockets. :)
Or maybe
{
}.
while $x ;
--
Groet, Ruud
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 12:07:52PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: Or just give them some sort of syntactic marker ... I know!
:
: loop {
: ...
: }
: :while $loopy;
:
: eat :if $hungry;
: go_postal :when $aggravation > 10;
: .sleep :until .rested;
:
: *Everybo
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 10:18:57AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> It ain't easy. Maybe we should just make statement modifiers uppercase
> and burn out everyone's eye sockets. :)
Or just give them some sort of syntactic marker ... I know!
loop {
...
}
:while $loopy;
eat :if
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 05:03:32PM +0100, Smylers wrote:
: Markus Laire writes:
:
: > S04 seems to say that a style like this can't be used by
: > perl6-programmers:
: >
: > loop
: > {
: >...
: > }
: > while $x;
: >
: > I like this style, as it lines up both the keywords and the curlies.
:
On 7/20/06, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Markus Laire writes:
> S04 seems to say that a style like this can't be used by
> perl6-programmers:
>
> loop
> {
>...
> }
> while $x;
>
> I like this style, as it lines up both the keywords and the curlies.
As of yesterday you can get very c
Markus Laire writes:
> S04 seems to say that a style like this can't be used by
> perl6-programmers:
>
> loop
> {
>...
> }
> while $x;
>
> I like this style, as it lines up both the keywords and the curlies.
As of yesterday you can get very close to this by putting a space-eating
backslas
在 2006/7/1 下午 6:08 時，Tom Allison 寫到：
I picked this up at the YAPC and made some markups on it.
Apologies that it is not in a diff format, but that's going to come
with practice.
... is there a file attachment somewhere? :-)
I got stuck on some of the intended behaviors and prohibited
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 07:39:23AM +0300, Ilmari Vacklin wrote:
: Hi,
:
: S04 says thus:
:
: The default case:
:
: default {...}
:
: is exactly equivalent to
:
: when true {...}
:
: However, that parses to:
:
: if $_ ~~ bool::true { ...; leave }
:
: Which is not
On 10/23/05, Ilmari Vacklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> S04 says thus:
>
> The default case:
>
> default {...}
>
> is exactly equivalent to
>
> when true {...}
>
> However, that parses to:
>
> if $_ ~~ bool::true { ...; leave }
>
> Which is not executed if $_ is
On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 03:20:03PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Probably does something like:
:
: &?BLOCK does First; # no-op if it already does First
: &?BLOCK.firstlist.push(&block);
Probably shouldn't use up a normal name like "First" for that. Maybe we
can just reuse the trait name as
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:57:01AM -0500, David Christensen wrote:
: 1) What type of introspection, if any, are we providing to the language
: level? I.e., are we providing something along the lines of
:
: %traits = &?BLOCK.traits
:
: where %traits is keyed on trait name (FIRST, LAST, whate
David Christensen writes:
> Greetings,
>
> In trying to hack closure trait support into pugs, I have some
> questions about closure traits, variable with "will" traits and
> introspection. (Apologies if some of this has been discussed on the
> list before -- I'm just going off of the synopses,
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:45:59AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> That's spelled
>
> loop {
> $foo = readline;
> ...do stuff with $foo...
> } while ( $foo );
>
> these days.
>
> Larry
Cool, perfect. Thanks.
--Dks
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:59, Luke Palmer wrote:
> There's been some discussion about bringing a syntax back for that
> recently, but I haven't really been paying attention. Anyway, this is
> pretty clear:
>
> loop {
> $foo = readline;
> do { stuff :with($foo) };
> las
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 07:39:54AM -0800, David Storrs wrote:
: Given that Perl 6 won't support an actual do-while loop a la C++ (and
: yes, I know that Perl5 didn't either), how would you accomplish that?
: That is, I'd like to have a loop that runs once, then checks its
: condition to see if it s
David Storrs writes:
> Given that Perl 6 won't support an actual do-while loop a la C++ (and
> yes, I know that Perl5 didn't either), how would you accomplish that?
> That is, I'd like to have a loop that runs once, then checks its
> condition to see if it should repeat and continues to repeat as l
Given that Perl 6 won't support an actual do-while loop a la C++ (and
yes, I know that Perl5 didn't either), how would you accomplish that?
That is, I'd like to have a loop that runs once, then checks its
condition to see if it should repeat and continues to repeat as long
as the condition is true.
Thank you for your fast and detailed reply.
Larry Wall skribis 2005-01-29 11:08 (-0800):
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
> : Can last/redo be used outside loops? (i.e. with if or given)
> No, though of course what "loop" means is negotiable. Effectively,
> anything that c
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Some questions after reading S04:
:
:
: Can last/redo be used outside loops? (i.e. with if or given)
No, though of course what "loop" means is negotiable. Effectively,
anything that captures the appropriate control exceptions is a loop.
B
30 matches
Mail list logo
