Re: RFC 63

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: > > I am willing to withdraw RFC 63 if the following parts are > included somewhere in RFC 88 in this or equivalent language: I should like to note that I would like Peter to be described as a co-author in RFC 88, whether or not RFC 63 is withdrawn. That is, with his permissio

Re: RFC 128 (v1) Subroutines: Extend subroutine contexts to includename parameters and lazy arguments

2000-08-19 Thread Tim Jenness
On 17 Aug 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > Subroutines: Extend subroutine contexts to include name parameters and lazy arguments This is great. I've wanted something like this for ages :-) > The following context modifiers would be available: > > \ parameter must be a reference

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort order for any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "Damian" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Damian> Don't give alternatives. Give a "these alternatives were considered and Damian> *rejected*" list. $ME is capitalized (like all "magic" vars), and short. I actually don't like the literal $ME. It usurps a variable name that has

Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, possibly $#.

2000-08-19 Thread Ken Fox
"Christopher J. Madsen" wrote: > foreach $item $index (@array) { > print $item, " is at index ", $index, "\n"; > } That's useful syntax, but I'd rather it mean stepping pair-wise through @array. Then we could scan through a hash with foreach $key $value (%hash) { ... } (Hashes are

Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit assignment, andwantarray() changes

2000-08-19 Thread Nathan Wiger
Damian Conway wrote: > > The lvalue accessor *shouldn't* be doing the assignment (what if an assignment > isn't what I want?). > > The (overloaded) operator = should do the assignment. To whatever lvalue > the lvalue subroutine returns. > > Or the "assignment" should be done by operator += or o

Re: TAI time

2000-08-19 Thread Russ Allbery
Tim Jenness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think this is a bit of a red herring. Presuambly the time on your > computer depends on where you are synching from (if at all) - if you are > synching to a TAI time server then you are fine. In the worst case you > are synching to the sys admins watch

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort order for any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
>From his padded room, Randal suggested: > > "John" == John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > John> I don't like $ME either, but my alternative is probably even more > John> blasphemous: use $self. > > John> But wait, it gets worse: I'd even be happy with the bar

Re: RFC 118 (v1) lvalue subs: parameters, explicit assignment, andwantarray() changes

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> Good distinctions. So, if I'm reading you right, this won't work? > >@oldpath = $tree->path('L','R') = ('R'); It means: @oldpath = $tree->patch('L','R')->OP_=('R'); So it will work fine, if that's what you intended. :-) > Basically, the lvalue sub by your definition

Re: RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 09:40 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >Peter Scott wrote: > > > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > > > "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3; > > > > Note that 'error' is a vague term for which you have a specific > > meaning in mind here; be sure to give that definition where

Re: Thread programming model

2000-08-19 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Steven W McDougall wrote: > I've spent the last 3 years programming WindowsNT threads in MSVC++, > and I *really* like it. I want similar capabilities in Perl6. > > 1 The C++ thread model > Here is the thread model that I have in C++. It is a starting > point for thinking abo

Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, possibly $#.

2000-08-19 Thread Johan Vromans
Mike Pastore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I like the proposed syntax! I also think that C would be > useful, ... Seconded. It nicely fits in the current way each() is used and no backward incompatibilties. Especially when iterating sparse arrays. while (($index,$value) = each(@sparse_array))

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort order for any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> > It's an idea that within a method call, the object reference would > > not be passed as the first argument (or maybe, not *just* as the > > first argument), but in a variable named $ME. I was pushing that > > envelope a little. > > Is this RFC'ed yet? It may have been m

Re: RFC 128 (v1) Subroutines: Extend subroutine contexts to include name parameters and lazy arguments

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> Since there is a run-time component we could probably write a > proof-of-concept parser for some of this in perl5 now: > > use NamedParameters; This would certainly be an interesting and useful module. I encourage someone to create it. Of course, it couldn't (easily) include all

Re: RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 08:01 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >RFC 88 is discussing making errors into exceptions. I strongly >don't think we should attempt the converse, that is, making >exceptions into errors. > > "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3; Note that 'error' is a vague term for wh

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-19 Thread J. David Blackstone
On the main perl6-language list, Larry Wall wrote: > The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say > > local $obj->attribute = 2; Oooh. Someone proposed this as a reason why we can't get rid of dynamic variables, and I've spent all evening being troubled by it. If that "c

Exception stack: let's use the @@ list.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
I'm rejigging RFC 88 so that not only does $@ refer to the current exception, but @@ refers to the exception stack. This moves all the link handling stuff (such as link and any) out of the Exception class and into the handling mechanism itself. So, now you can say: catch grep { $_->isa

Re: Thread usage cases

2000-08-19 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Steven W McDougall wrote: > Thread1 Thread2 > push @a, (1, 2, 3); push @a, (4, 5, 6); > > The interesting question is whether push is atomic. Array operations should be atomic. > > Atomic > @a is either (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) or (4, 5, 6, 1, 2,

RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort order for any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread Nathan Wiger
Damian Conway wrote: > > It's an idea that within a method call, the object reference would > not be passed as the first argument (or maybe, not *just* as the > first argument), but in a variable named $ME. I was pushing that > envelope a little. Is this RFC'ed yet? If not, I'll do it, but not u

Re: Draft 2 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Glenn Linderman wrote: > > So that was one thing I tried to do in RFC 119: it discusses > only throwing and handling exceptions. It leaves open what is > thrown. It allows for simple exceptions in simple programs to > use simple mechanisms (throw a scalar); it allows for complex > but non-OO e

RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
RFC 88 is discussing making errors into exceptions. I strongly don't think we should attempt the converse, that is, making exceptions into errors. "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3; That's why RFC 88 defines both Exception and Error classes, the latter of which inherits from

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort order for any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread Randal L. Schwartz
> "John" == John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: John> I don't like $ME either, but my alternative is probably even more John> blasphemous: use $self. "It usurps a variable name that has been legal for John> customer use in prior Perls!" you re-exclaim. Not if it only appears in a John

Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
=head1 TITLE Structured Exception/Error Handling Mechanism =head1 VERSION Maintainer: Tony Olekshy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 19 Aug 2000 Version: 2 (Draft 3) Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Number: 88 =head1 DRAFT STATUS This redaction has been modified to reflect Pete

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort orderfor any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread John Siracusa
On 8/19/00 11:50 AM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > I actually don't like the literal $ME. It usurps a variable name that > has been legal for customer use in prior Perls. Why not use something > more "system-belonging" like %_ or even $_? In fact, "self" in $_ and > "args" in @_ has a nice symmet

Re: TAI Time

2000-08-19 Thread Mark-Jason Dominus
I agree with Tim that it's a red herring that unix systems don't normally have access to a TAI source. The proposal under discussion is to use one time format for all platforms. So maybe there's a minor difficulty in converting unix time to TAI time; probably it's not as large as the difficult

Re: RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > "An exception is not necessarily an error.\n" x 3; > > Note that 'error' is a vague term for which you have a specific > meaning in mind here; be sure to give that definition where it's > important. How 'bout something like, "an exception r

Re: Draft 2 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
> >We write a lot of simple throws, most of which would look > >like this with the new mechanism as proposed so far: > > > > throw Error_DB "ABC.1234: Message about what went wrong."; > > > > Without the techniques and hooks I've described in 88v2d2, > > I'd have to write the following, which has

Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 11:04 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch, >because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers >who meant to say catch Foo {}? This is a good point, but I'm not about to concede an extra keyword :-) Let's look at som

Re: RFC 120 (v2) Implicit counter in for statements, possibly $#.

2000-08-19 Thread John McNamara
There have been several good suggestions. We'll leave the discussion run for another few days and then I'll try to summarise the main points in a single post. John -- "The Mosaic code has replaced the law of the jungle." James Joyce - Ulysses

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort orderfor any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread John Siracusa
On 8/19/00 4:04 PM, Damian Conway wrote: > You can have your cake, but not force us to eat it too... Come, partake of the Loony Cake... :) > Like $AUTOLOAD, $ME would be dynamically scoped: > > package LoonyBin; > > sub self {$ME}; > > sub get_polite_age : method { > return (self->age >= 40)

Re: Draft 1 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
"Brust, Corwin" wrote: > > Peter Scott wrote: > > > > I think it would be best to supply a reference. This is a > > mammoth RFC already and it will be decided on by people who > > very well know what exception handling is; their reading time > > is at a premium. > > Decided on, yes, but having th

RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch, because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers who meant to say catch Foo {}? And what happens when someone says catch "Foo", "Bar" {}? We can't just say that catch Foo {} and catch "Foo" {} are the same thing, or that

Re: Do threads support SMP?

2000-08-19 Thread Chaim Frenkel
This belongs on -internals. The threading model will probably be identical for all ports. And my suspicion is that -internals will use whatever the platform provides. I don't think we want to write a portable threading capability. > "SWM" == Steven W McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

mail filtering for perl6-all

2000-08-19 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
I added another header to the perl6-all mails. X-Mailing-List-Name will contain the original list name, san -help and whatnot. So the recommended procmail filter rule would now be: :0: * ^Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm * ^X-Mailing-List-Name: \/(.*) perl/$MATCH or someth

Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: > > Dave Rolsky wrote: > > > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > > > die > > > > > > If argument isa "Exception", raise it as the new > > > exception and die in the fashion that Perl 5 does. > > > > > > If argument is a string, wrap it in a new Error > > > object, set

Re: RFC 88 Exceptions, Errors, and Inheritance.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > That's not what's proposed. The core and other users would > > use classes derived from Error to raise errors. Other users > > could even just Error itself. Exception is reserved for > > exceptions that don't and shouldn't derive from Error. >

Re: RFC 88: What does catch "Foo" { } do?

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: > > At 11:04 PM 8/18/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > As currently promulgated, catch "Foo" {} will always catch, > > because "Foo" is true. Will this cause confusion for developers > > who meant to say catch Foo {}? > > This is a good point, but I'm not about to concede

Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Dave Rolsky
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote: > die > > If argument isa "Exception", raise it as the new exception and > die in the fashion that Perl 5 does. > > If argument is a string, wrap it in a new Error object, setting > the message ivar to the given string, and raise that in

Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 09:22 PM 8/19/00 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote: >On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > die > > > > If argument isa "Exception", raise it as the new exception and > > die in the fashion that Perl 5 does. > > > > If argument is a string, wrap it in a new Error object, setting > >

epoch for time

2000-08-19 Thread Tim Jenness
I'm of the camp that feels perl should have a fixed epoch rather than the epoch of the underlining OS. Furthermore, I can understand that the OS epoch can also be important when looking outside of perl. Thinking this over for a while it occurred to me that time() currently has no arguments and th

Re: Maximum length input line

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 06:22 PM 8/19/00 -0700, I wrote: >No, the point is not that I want truncated lines but that I want to say >"toss/leave back the excess over 100,000 characters when I do a , >for I am sure that a line longer than that would be an error of some kind." I phrased this badly. I meant to say that

Re: Maximum length input line

2000-08-19 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Peter Scott wrote: > -io guys, I've been looking through your archives at the line discipline > stuff and I don't see this there: what do you think? The proposal is for a > mode that specifies a maximum number of characters to be returned by a > getline (<>) so that parano

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-19 Thread Chaim Frenkel
I missed the original posting. But why wouldn't you? If lvalue subs worked properly, so should local lvalue_sub() The return of an lvalue sub should be something that is lvaluable. So local should be able to chew on it. > "JDB" == J David Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Re: Thread usage cases

2000-08-19 Thread Chaim Frenkel
> "BCW" == Bryan C Warnock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 3. Subroutines >> >> sub foo { print "foo" } >> >> Thread1 Thread2 >> foo(); eval 'sub foo { print "bar" }'; >> >> This prints either "foo" or "bar". >> >> Thread2 replaces the coderef for &main::foo. Th

Re: RFC for $ME class variable (was Re: RFC 124 (v1) Sort order for any hash)

2000-08-19 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > I'll have an adjacent cell. I actually like that *better* than $self. > Let's not stop there though. Perhaps we need "self" and "super" and > "thisContext". Only half joking... this would solve a lot of the > hacking issues. self could be a "die

I18N Paper

2000-08-19 Thread Simon Cozens
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/Tools/I18N/LJ-I18N.html is a fine paper on the need for and challenges involved in I18N and L10N support. -- \let\l\let\l\d\def\l\a\active\l~\catcode~`?\a~`;\a\d;{~`};!\a\d!{?;~}\l?\the;# !;]!\l]\l;\.!;,!;\%!;=!]=\d],\expandafter;[!][{=%{\message[};\$!=${\uccode`

Re: ANNOUNCE: Inline 0.23 (Mix Perl and C w/o XS)

2000-08-19 Thread Sam Tregar
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Graham Barr wrote: > > No. The documentation states that the compilation is done only when the > > source file is out of date with the companion object file. As I > > understand it, Inline has some kind of limited automatic make ability. > > So it is a security issue then a

Re: ANNOUNCE: Inline 0.23 (Mix Perl and C w/o XS)

2000-08-19 Thread Brian Ingerson
Sam Tregar wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Graham Barr wrote: > > So it is a security issue then as it needs somewhere to cache these > > object files, and anyone must be able to do it. > > The place it stores its objects is configurable, so it's only a security > problem if you make it one! I'

Re: Vtable speed worry

2000-08-19 Thread Ken Fox
Simon Cozens wrote: > Currently, SvPVX(foo) requires one lookup No lookups at all -- SvPVX(foo) is just a pointer offset, i.e. an add. > with a vtable, it would necessitate two, (One to find the functino in "foo", > and then the functino must find the data in "foo") It would probably work somet

Re: ANNOUNCE: Inline 0.23 (Mix Perl and C w/o XS)

2000-08-19 Thread Brian Ingerson
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > De ja vu. Are you familiar with Cons? > > http://search.cpan.org/doc/KNIGHT/cons-2.1.1/README > Interesting. I was not familiar with this package. I just needed a good way to know whether a snippet of source code had been changed. Since the snippet is probably just

Re: RFC 130 (v1) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6

2000-08-19 Thread dLux
/--- On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 06:19:43PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: | I don't think you should even attempt to version/transaction | protect | a tied variable. Anything that leaves the memory or could leave | the | memory (e.g. socket write) should probably not be versioned. | | Unles

Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 08:43 PM 8/19/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: >Peter Scott wrote: > > > > Dave Rolsky wrote: > > > > > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > > > > > die > > > > If argument is anything else, raise a run-time > > > > exception. > > > > > > So this probably shouldn't be the case. > > > > This soun

Re: Draft 3 of RFC 88 version 2.

2000-08-19 Thread Tony Olekshy
Peter Scott wrote: > > At 08:43 PM 8/19/00 -0600, Tony Olekshy wrote: > >Peter Scott wrote: > > > > > > Dave Rolsky wrote: > > > > > > > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > die > > > > > If argument is anything else, raise a run-time > > > > > exception. > > > > > > > > So this pro

Re: Maximum length input line

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 12:01 AM 8/20/00 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: >On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Peter Scott wrote: > > -io guys, I've been looking through your archives at the line discipline > > stuff and I don't see this there: what do you think? The proposal is > for a > > mode that specifies a maximum number of ch

Re: Maximum length input line

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 08:59 PM 8/19/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Au contraire; sysread reads exactly the number of characters requested; > >what I want is a way for programs that do all over the place to be > >protected if someone throws a gargantuan number of characters at FH without > >a newline. The $/

Re: Maximum length input line

2000-08-19 Thread Uri Guttman
> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: PS> No, the point is not that I want truncated lines but that I want to say PS> "toss/leave back the excess over 100,000 characters when I do a , PS> for I am sure that a line longer than that would be an error of some PS> kind."

Re: Extended Regexs

2000-08-19 Thread skud
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 08:46:17PM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote: > >There is one significant area of perl that has very little attention here >(other than one of my RFCs) that is regexs. Are you volunteering to chair a sublist? *grin* K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://neti

Re: Extended Regexs

2000-08-19 Thread Andrew Wilson
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 03:15:54PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote: > There would still be a use of a /f like flag, though -- treat all (...) > like (?:...). That would make the regex more likely to be DFA-able, and > is often what I want but I don't want to clutter up my regex with those > nasty ?:'s eve

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Glenn Linderman
Clever, and really obscure; wouldn't this then require that _everyone_ that writes a curried expression for the sort sub use ^a & ^b, and that everyone writing a non-curried sort sub name their parameters a and b? I guess that wouldn't necessarily be bad, but it would be restrictive. Damian Conw

Re: Maximum length input lines

2000-08-19 Thread Uri Guttman
> "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: PS> At 08:50 PM 8/19/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I do believe thbis is one of the reasons sysread is there >> >> perldoc -f sysread PS> Au contraire; sysread reads exactly the number of characters PS> requested; what I

Re: Maximum length input lines

2000-08-19 Thread belg4mit
In reply to your message from the not too distant future: next Saturday AD Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-receipt-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: a) Discordia b) none c) what's that? Content-Typo: gibberish, charset=ascii-art Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:50:44 -0400 From: Jerrad Pierce I do

Re: Maximum length input line

2000-08-19 Thread belg4mit
In reply to your message from the not too distant future: next Saturday AD Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Return-receipt-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: a) Discordia b) none c) what's that? Content-Typo: gibberish, charset=ascii-art Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:59:26 -0400 From: Jerrad Pierce >Au

Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

2000-08-19 Thread Nathan Torkington
Nathan Wiger writes: > Anyone RFC'ing this yet? I could RFC it in vague terms, but I'm waiting to see how things like interfaces turn out. > Which reminds, anyone gonna RFC the rumored death of typeglobs? :-) I figured that as Larry had used it as an example of things that were up for grabs in

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
Larry pointed out: > Yes, but has anyone pointed out that > >@out = sort ^b cmp ^a, @in; > > won't do what people will certainly think it ought to? It *will*, if C *names* the two values it passes to the comparator! E.g.: sub sort (^&comparator, @list) {

Re: Ideas that need RFCs?

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> : Text::Balanced has to track in order to parse almost any Perl code. > > It's a good thing you said "almost". Ah, that Jesuit education finally pays off! ;-) > Does it parse [*]] correctly? No, but only because C ignores punctuation vars entirely. It would be a simple fix to

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> I think this does the right thing too: > > @out = sort ^0 cmp ^a, @in; > > Since numbered placeholders have higher priority than named, it > should create the function > > sub ($, $a) { $_[0] cmp $_[1] } > When the curry is evaluated, the a: parameter is bound t

Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

2000-08-19 Thread Nathan Wiger
Nathan Torkington wrote: > > Exporter is pure Perl, but > I'd love to see its functionality moved into the core (or, indeed, > replaced by a general compile-time interface setup with separate > runtime execution semantics) for speed reasons. Anyone RFC'ing this yet? This time I'm *not* voluntee

Re: implied pascal-like "with" or "express"

2000-08-19 Thread Ken Fox
Dave Storrs wrote: > On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > BTW, if we define C to map keys of a hash to named place holders > > in a curried expression, this might be a good thing: > > > > with %person { > > print "Howdy, ", ^firstname, " ", ^lastname; > > } > >

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Larry Wall
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes: : > > (Yes, there is a small aesthetic edge in using $a vs $_[0], but I still : > > consider the $ and $b to be warts.) : > > : > And anyhow, this will work just fine (see RFC 23): : > : > $sum = reduce ^a + ^b, @numbers; : : I have been amply reminded of this, thank

A query

2000-08-19 Thread Rajesh Mathachan
hi all Can any body tell me how do i learn mod perl and what is mod perl i am new to perl and got some experence in php can i get some guide lines thanks in adv reg rajesh mats -- QuantumLink Communications, Bombay, India

Re: Ideas that need RFCs?

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> > * The match operator, C, is always required (bare C > > becomes a fatal error). > > I could live with that. Damian's done some work trying to tokenize > Perl and knows what the weird edge cases are. Damian, can you post > your short list? Bare C and bare C *are* the main

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Glenn Linderman
Well, RFC 23 doesn't mention ^0, and has several examples starting at ^1. And it draws the analogy between ^1, ^2, etc and $1, $2, etc. I didn't make it up. So I don't think you're being consistent here. Neither do I consider it an improvement to add ^0. While the positional placeholders may w

Re: RFC 126 (v1) Ensuring Perl's object-oriented future

2000-08-19 Thread J. David Blackstone
Larry Wall wrote: > The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say > > local $obj->attribute = 2; Is anyone thinking of this? This comes at a good time when I've been looking for just such an idea to shore up one of my proposals on perl6-language-strict. J. David

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Jeremy Howard
Larry Wall wrote: > Jarkko Hietaniemi writes: > : > > (Yes, there is a small aesthetic edge in using $a vs $_[0], but I still > : > > consider the $ and $b to be warts.) > : > > > : > And anyhow, this will work just fine (see RFC 23): > : > > : > $sum = reduce ^a + ^b, @numbers; > : > : I have b

Re: RFC 23 (v3) Higher order functions

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> > If there are any RFC's which you have in mind and could send me your > > notes on, I'd be *more* than happy to help out. > > > This is actually an excellent idea, because then Damian can > concentrate on coming up with the key ideas. However, rather than > having to shuffle n

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Jeremy Howard
Damian Conway wrote: >> Well, RFC 23 doesn't mention ^0, and has several examples starting >> at ^1. And it draws the analogy between ^1, ^2, etc and $1, $2, >> etc. I didn't make it up. > > My apologies. The examples you refer to are incorrect. They were added by > a helper, but the

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> So that's what I missed, that you expect named actual parameters to > be legally passable to subs with unnamed formal parameters. I would > consider that inappropriate, needing at least a warning. Perhaps under: use strict 'parameters'; > If people want to use named pa

Re: RFC 23 (v3) Higher order functions

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> So perhaps you should ask people to contribute implementation notes > sections to your RFCs rather than entire RFCs? And no sense in requiring > that for the initial version, though a solicitation in the text of the > RFC itself might hasten their appearance. I thought that was what

Re: Extended Regexs

2000-08-19 Thread James Mastros
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 07:57:34AM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote: > The choice of algorithms is a great idea, but why do we need a modifier? > Isn't it a pretty straightforward set of rules that allow us to decide if a > DFA matcher will work? Well, that all depends what the meaning of the word work

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Jeremy Howard
Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! - Original Message - From: "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jarkko Hietani

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Glenn Linderman
Larry Wall wrote: > Jarkko Hietaniemi writes: > : > > (Yes, there is a small aesthetic edge in using $a vs $_[0], but I still > : > > consider the $ and $b to be warts.) > > Yes, but has anyone pointed out that > >@out = sort ^b cmp ^a, @in; > > won't do what people will certainly think it ou

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Glenn Linderman
Damian Conway wrote: >> Clever, and really obscure; > > "Invisible", rather than "obscure", I would say. > DWIMity of the first order. :-) > >> wouldn't this then require that _everyone_ that >> writes a curried expression for the sort sub use ^a & ^b, and that everyone >> writing

Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

2000-08-19 Thread Nathan Wiger
Nathan Torkington wrote: > > David L. Nicol writes: > > RFC: Perl6 is Final. There will Be No Perl7 > > > > We declare that our framework willbe so flexiblke > > that anything can be done with it and there will be no penalty > > for something being in-core opposed to out-of-core and so on

Re: PDL-P: Re: RFC 115 (v1) Default methods for objects

2000-08-19 Thread c . soeller
"David L. Nicol" wrote: > > =head1 TITLE > > > > Default methods for objects > > Title does not match description. How about > > Overloadable bracketing > > or > > Brackets as Methods > > or > > Syntax as Overloadable Methods Good point! Will be part of v2. Christian

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> Well, RFC 23 doesn't mention ^0, and has several examples starting > at ^1. And it draws the analogy between ^1, ^2, etc and $1, $2, > etc. I didn't make it up. My apologies. The examples you refer to are incorrect. They were added by a helper, but the responsibility is mine -- for not

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> > Now, go home and write it out 100 times: > > > > "Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*!" > Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! > Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! > Array and placeholder indices both start at *zero*! > Array

Re: RFC 23 (v3) Higher order functions

2000-08-19 Thread Larry Wall
Nathan Torkington writes: : The fact that other languages can implement it trivially doesn't mean : that Perl can. I'd like us to have realized what kind of internals : support is needed for a language feature (e.g., optree duping for : partially-evaluated subroutines) *before* speccing out the i

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Ken Fox
Damian Conway wrote: > sub sort (^&comparator, @list) { > for (1..@list**3) { > my ($i, $j) = (rand(@list), rand(@list)); > @list[$i,$j] = @list[$j,$i] > unless $comparator->(a: $list[$i], b: $list[$j]); >

Maximum length input lines

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At first I thought this was a -io item, but then I realized the -io part is easy; it's the -language part I need to get right :-) I have often thought that there should be a way to say that a readline() should limit the length of line it could return, or in circumstances where the input source

Re: Maximum length input lines

2000-08-19 Thread Peter Scott
At 08:50 PM 8/19/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I do believe thbis is one of the reasons sysread is there > >perldoc -f sysread Au contraire; sysread reads exactly the number of characters requested; what I want is a way for programs that do all over the place to be protected if someone t

Re: Extended Regexs

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> > /\A(?s:(?!and).)*\Z/ > > > > /pattern returned from ${\some_function} as part of a regex/ > > > > /match any of (${\join'|',@list}) here/ > > I am not saying these things can't be done, in fact I was saying they can > but was rather asking what should be made easier?

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Damian Conway
> Except that Perl 6 people will know all about numbered parameters, so they > will write: > > @out = sort ^2 cmp ^1, @in; > > and it will work just as they expect! As long as they expect it to fail miserably! :-( Now, go home and write it out 100 times: "Array and

Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

2000-08-19 Thread skud
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 05:22:17PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote: >RFC: Perl6 is Final. There will Be No Perl7 >RFC: Everything is Accessible and Mutable >RFC: The perl6 reference implementation, no matter how slow it is, >will be written in perl5, in some kind of well defined virtual machine. >

Re: Extended Regexs

2000-08-19 Thread Richard Proctor
On Fri 18 Aug, Damian Conway wrote: >> All of these can be done today but are not necessarily "easy". >> > > /\A(?s:(?!and).)*\Z/ > > /pattern returned from ${\some_function} as part of a regex/ > > /match any of (${\join'|',@list}) here/ > I am not saying these things can't be done,

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread Nathan Wiger
Larry Wall wrote: > > Yes, but has anyone pointed out that > >@out = sort ^b cmp ^a, @in; > > won't do what people will certainly think it ought to? > > Larry Well, this will hopefully be moot. I was inspired by discussion here, my own disdain, and p5p strict issues to write an RFC simply

Re: Ideas that need RFCs?

2000-08-19 Thread Larry Wall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Bare C and bare C *are* the main culprits. They require : the tokenizer to track expression semantics so that when it encounters a : '/' or '?' it can tell whether a pattern is plausible in this place or : whether they've reached a division or hook operator, respectivel

Re: RFCs (Re: Ideas that need RFCs?)

2000-08-19 Thread Steve Fink
Jeremy Howard wrote: > > > Steve Fink writes: > > > And both those examples apply to the underpinnings. Ok, maybe I have an > > > unusually broad definition of the word "underpinnings". Think "anything > > > that can't be done with a pure perl module". > > > Say "anything that can't be done *fast

Re: RFC 76 (v1) Builtin: reduce

2000-08-19 Thread skud
I think all discussion fo RFC 76 (reduce) should be on the new -data sublist. Jeremy, am I on track here? K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: +61 3 9614 0949

Re: Maximum length input lines

2000-08-19 Thread skud
On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 05:45:39PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: >At first I thought this was a -io item, but then I realized the -io part is >easy; it's the -language part I need to get right :-) Um. The -io sublist is called -language-io for a reason -- it's for language discussions related to IO.

Re: Maximum length input lines

2000-08-19 Thread Ariel Scolnicov
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "PS" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > PS> At 08:50 PM 8/19/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I do believe thbis is one of the reasons sysread is there > >> > >> perldoc -f sysread > > PS> Au contraire; sysread reads

Re: RFC 132 (v1) subroutines should be able to return an lvalue

2000-08-19 Thread Chaim Frenkel
Perhaps foo should be lazily evaluated. Then the want would return the correct usage. Though once the value is returned, it should stay that way on all subsequent usages until the call stack is unwound. > "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Besides, context can't always

  1   2   >