On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 12:54, Larry Wall wrote:
> But we'll just have to shoot anyone who makes a wisecrack like:
>
> use parens :lisp;
Surely that should have its own pragma:
use parenths;
-- c
On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 06:02:13PM +, Smylers wrote:
: David Storrs writes:
: > Just checking--whitespace doesn't count, right?
: >
: > foo(1,2,3);# Func with 3 args
: > foo (1,2,3); # Same exact thing
:
: You quote Larry's text about methods, then give an example using
: functi
David Storrs writes:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:07:59AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > 2) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, methods always
> > assume they have *no* arguments. For methods:
> >
> > 2a) A method not followed by a left paren or colon has no
> > argument
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 11:07:59AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> 2) In the absence of evidence to the contrary, methods always
> assume they have *no* arguments. For methods:
>
> 2a) A method not followed by a left paren or colon has no
> arguments.
Just checking--whitespace
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 12:32:30AM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
:Doesn't the concept of an anonymous named param (in the fourth and fifth
: examples above) seem like an oxymoron? If it's anonymous it can't have a
: name (or at least we can't know its name).
It's anonymous only in the sense that
> -Original Message-
> 1d) Additional arguments may occur as adverbs *only* if there
> are explicit parens. (Or in the absence of parens they may
> parse as arguments when a term is expected--but then they're
> not adverbs, just named arguments...)
>
>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 09:19:29PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: i have no issue with splurt() being needed to disambiguate. i just
: wanted to see your take (this week :) on it as i felt the table was
: ambiguous so far. as far as making it a warning, wouldn't that make the
: warning space sensitive
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 07:05:28PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
LW> : LW> : splurt + 1 # same??
LW> : LW> : splurt +1 # work on +1??
LW> :
LW> : so how do the 2 above get parsed? the space between + and
On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 07:05:28PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: LW> : splurt + 1 # same??
: LW> : splurt +1 # work on +1??
:
: so how do the 2 above get parsed? the space between + and 1 looks alike
: a 0-ary splurt but the +1 could be 0-ary added to 1 or unary with +1 as
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 06:10:17PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
LW> : can you have a 0- or 1-ary function? meaning like the many funcs that
LW> : work on $_ with no args or the single arg you pass in. how do you
LW> : declare it so it p
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 06:10:17PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: can you have a 0- or 1-ary function? meaning like the many funcs that
: work on $_ with no args or the single arg you pass in. how do you
: declare it so it parses correctly?
:
: splurt # should work on $_
: splurt
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> 1c) Explicit parentheses may delimit the actual arguments,
LW> in which case the function is parsed as a function rather
LW> than a list operator. Adverbs may follow the parens:
LW> splurt(1,2,3):by{ +$_ } # okay
Here's a message I posted to the cabal last week a couple of days after
our design meetings, in which we discussed the method lookahead issue.
This message resolves those issues as well as how adverbs are parsed.
Eventually this information will find its way into S12, when we get
around to writing
13 matches
Mail list logo
