Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> >Well, it only does this if it's not something like 'split', then!
>
> Yes, it does "do it" with split. split is defined to do what it
> does, how it does it. *This* is the kind of senseless harping that
> annoys me, Nathan.
H. I'm apparently not making myself
Damian Conway wrote:
>
> * invoke some other hierarchy of automagic methods
> (REFIT? RESHAPE? MORPH? TRANSMOGRIFY?), or
If we do go this way, then we should make sure any names follow suit:
BLESS REBLESS
CREATE RECREATE
INVOKE REINVOKE
SHAPE
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:05:23AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>> This bothers me. It leaves no way to override the behavior of a
>> parent's SETUP and DESTROY, you can only overlay. You mentioned that
>> this is normal for most other OO languages, so I presume there's a way
>> t
> Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > * invoke some other hierarchy of automagic methods
> > (REFIT? RESHAPE? MORPH? TRANSMOGRIFY?), or
REINCARNATE
Tom Hughes wrote:
> > For example, in Perl you have for a long time been able to do this:
> >
> >($one, $two) = grep /$pat/, @data;
> >
> > However, what currently happens is grep goes to completion, then
> > discards possibly huge amounts of data just to return the first two
> > matches. For
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:40:13PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> TC> But Perl is not an interactive shell! Can you imagine if a C
> TC> compiler allowed arbitrary amounts of text to be pre-included
>
> and what about the proposals f
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example, in Perl you have for a long time been able to do this:
>
>($one, $two) = grep /$pat/, @data;
>
> However, what currently happens is grep goes to completion, then
> discards possibly huge amounts of
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> I use direct, raw access in prototyping when dipping back into C for
> "heavy" data manipulations - bit stream analysis, signals processing, etc.
> Since I'm usually doing a lot of buffer manipulations, I don't want all
> the scalar overhead that comes into play.
> > >M
On 1 Sep 2000 20:50:20 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>Imagine a very long input string containing data such as this:
>
>... GCAAGAATTGAACTGTAG ...
>
>If you want to match text that matches /GA+C/, but not when it
>follows /G+A+T+/, you cannot at present do so easily. Under this
>proposal
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 01:52:09PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On 1 Sep 2000 20:50:20 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> >Imagine a very long input string containing data such as this:
> >
> >... GCAAGAATTGAACTGTAG ...
> >
> >If you want to match text that matches /GA+C/, but not when it
>
> "Tom" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Wherever you think you need one of these, try to think again. Either
Tom> it's already in list context, in which case it's silly to put in
Tom> the list thing, or else there's always a better way to accomplish
Tom> whatever you're
It's called meta shell
ftp://www.guug.de/pub/members/truemper/metash
--
#!/usr/bin/perl -nl
BEGIN{($,,$0)=("\040",21);@F=(sub{tr[a-zA-Z][n-za-mN-ZA-M];print;});
$_="Gnxr 1-3 ng n gvzr, gur ynfg bar vf cbvfba.";&{$F[0]};sub t{*t=sub{};
return if rand()<.5;$_="Vg'f abg lbhe ghea lrg, abj tb.";&{$F
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >it can be used for system specific @INC paths without
> >recompiling perl
>
> That's what PERL5LIB is for.
PERL5LIB is available for the individual user to use, set, unset, change,
etc., at will. As sysadmin, you can't set it in /etc/profile and b
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Derived classes will never have to override a base's implementation,
> and all member variables should be private, and everyone will always
> use an accessor, and the UN will bring about world peace, and as long
> as I'm wishing for a perfect world, I'd like a pony. ;
On 9/2/00 11:34 AM, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> It doesn't seem that it's that hard to add a single line to your SETUP or
> BLESS or whatever method that calls SUPER::SETUP.
I'm pretty sure one of the big points about the system described is that it
ensures both that there's always a predictable and au
John Siracusa wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure one of the big points about the system described is that it
> ensures both that there's always a predictable and automatic chain of events
> for SETUP/DESTROY (without requiring the programmer to create and document
> his own bug-free implementation) and i
>The whole notion of blessing is non-obvious enough already.
It's the benedictory (con)not(at)ion of blessing, not the bless()ing
itself that so confuses people, I think.
It bless() were instead named something like
mark
stamp
label
brand
retype
denote
notate
On 9/2/00 12:12 PM, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> I think this RFC could work for this, but as I noted in a private email
> to Damian I'd rather see a whole new keyword made, maybe "setup"?
>
> sub new { setup {}, @_ }
> sub SETUP { ... }
Sure, but does setup() bless? That's the question... :) In othe
> "Perl6" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perl6> This RFC proposes that the second argument to C be made
Perl6> mandatory, and that its semantics be enhanced slightly to cover a
Perl6> common, ugly, and frequently buggy usage.
Yes!
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Cons
> "Perl6" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perl6> This RFC proposes a new pseudoclass named C.
Perl6> This pseudoclass would provide a way of correctly redispatching a method
Perl6> or an autoloaded method.
Yes!
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc.
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 12:16:48AM -0400, John Tobey wrote:
> I agree with Michael that SETUP should be BLESS. You argue that it
Oops, I mean Nate. Sorry, Michael!
-John
> > I dropped the I<$thread>->C call from this interface, and didn't
> > say what happens if a thread Cs. There are several possibilities
> I think that the try stack should unwind all the way through the new Thread
> call -- that is, that the catches for the block that the thread was started
> i
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > But I agree that anything beyond that is simply horrible. You'll only
> > > drive more people *away* from OO, because it generates so horribly
> > > inefficient code. If you want a constructor called, than FGS *call* a
> > > constructor. Mayb
> > So, you don't define a SETUP. BUT, the author of a module you're
> > inheriting from defined a SETUP, not to your knowledge?
>
> No worse that the current situation in which you have no clue what the
> guy you're inheriting from expects. Better to have SETUPs called
> below you than to not e
> I can most certainly think of cases where a base class's DESTROY does
> something a derived class doesn't like. Consider your example,
> File::Lock. File::Lock::DESTROY calls flock($fh, LOCK_UN). I derive
> File::Lock::Mac from File::Lock. Uh oh, Macs don't implement flock!
> Under your prop
This is from a perl5.7.0 (well the current perforce depot) compiled
with -pg and then run on a smallish example of my heavy OO day job app.
The app reads 7300 lines of "verilog" and parses it with (tweaked) Parse-Yapp
into tree of perl objects, messes with the parse tree and then calls
a method
>Perl supplies an operator for line input - angle brackets. This is no
>analogous operator for output. I propose "inverse angle brackets":
How about quotes? A quoted lhs expression could mean print. A quoted lhs
expression preceded by a file handle could mean print to filehandle.
Tom Christi
> Here is my suggestion: What if other functions were able to backtrace
> context and determine how many arguments to return just like split can?
I have an RFC on that:
RFC 21: Replace C with a generic C function
C takes a list of strings that describe aspects of the
> > Here is my suggestion: What if other functions were able to backtrace
> > context and determine how many arguments to return just like split can?
>I have an RFC on that:
> RFC 21: Replace C with a generic C function
>C takes a list of strings that describe aspects of the
>
> Ever consider then having
>
> ($a, $b, $c) = ;
> or
> @a[4,1,5] = ;
>
> only read three lines?
I think this is a superb idea, and look forward to someone's RFC'ing it.
Damian
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> > Well, this is not bad, only it's not without its problems. Say you
> > wanted to get your indices implicitly:
> >
> > @a[getindices()];
> > @a[$r->get_x, $r->get_y];
>
> @a["@{\(getindices())}"];
> @a[join $",$r->ge
> goes? Your logic suggests that I'd never want to meddle in the base's
> implementation.
What happens when the base classes' author finally fixes the problem you
wrote around (and incidentally changes touchy implementation details in the
base)? What happens someday when you can't see the implem
> Also, its not entirely clear why method chaining is desired only for
> constructor and destructors. What about every other method?
Constructors and destructors are special. They're not about *doing*
something; they're about *being* (or not being) something.
A "doing" method *may* wish t
> BLESS is still my top choice by far, because while it doesn't do any
> blessing, it's obvious what it's attached to.
I think it's misleading.
> Remember, PRINT and PRINTF don't have to do any printing, nor do
> POP, PUSH, etc, have to do any popping or pushing.
But SETUP *neve
> I'm still not totally convinced that its so horrid to make the
> File::LockAndKey DESTROY call $self->SUPER::DESTROY manually...
Believe me, it is in a large, deep, and/or MI hierarchy!
> but it does break encapsulation.
Exactly.
> If you can figure a way out of the dilema I
> The "multiple inheritance paths" one is good. I like that part a lot.
> But the rest makes me really nervous if there's no way to override or
> change it.
There is. I'll try and get the C RFC out today.
> One thing nobody's brought up is this: What if you decide you want the
>
On 1 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Objects : Private keys and methods
Here, here & amen, Damian! This one gets my instant vote!
David
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > But I agree that anything beyond that is simply horrible. You'll only
> > > > drive more people *away* from OO, because it generates so horribly
> > > > inefficient code. If you want a constructo
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 03:13:17AM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> What happens when the base classes' author finally fixes the problem
> you wrote around (and incidentally changes touchy implementation
> details in the base)? What happens someday when you can't see the
> implementation of the base c
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 03:18:06PM -0400, Mike Lambert wrote:
> In certain cases, like the one in which you
> proposed, you'd want to explicitly bypass the parent DESTROY.
>
> sub DESTROY {
> my $self = shift;
> $self->UNIVERSAL::DESTROY(@_);
> }
>
> would skip the automatic chaining because
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 11:35:53AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>> If you can figure a way out of the dilema I proposed above, I suppose
>> this makes sense.
>
> Easy. Don't let File::Lock::Mac inherit from File::Lock. Have it *delegate*
> to File::Lock instead. See my forthcoming C RFC.
> > private $self->{data} = $derdata;
>
> should be $derdatum here?
Yes. Thanks.
Damian
> Yes, welcome to the dirty, icky real world. Life sucks, people will
> write bad code, you will have to inherit from it. Sometimes you have
> to break a little encapsulation to make an omlet. I'd rather it was
> not so, but its better to accept it and deal than deny.
>
> Of
> "SWM" == Steven W McDougall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not unless it is so declared my $a :shared.
SWM> Sure it is.
SWM> Here are some more examples.
SWM> Example 1: Passing a reference to a block-scoped lexical into a thread.
Depends on how locking/threading is designed. There is a
> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It might be worthwhile enough to kill
>> sub fn { return (7,8,9,10) }
>> $x = fn(); # $x == 10
TC> But this happens many places. What about @foo[4,1,9,-2]?
TC> It's just a listish thing. One should learn.
I don't want that to
>I don't want that to change. I simply want that return (I'm not sure
>how to phrase this) be able to return only a scalar or an aggregate.
die unless wantarray;
>It should be immune from having a scalar context pushed through from
>the caller and change the commas from a list seperator into the
> Modulo some superpositional silliness,
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Damian
47 matches
Mail list logo
