On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Then it might be easier to write modules that are testable without a test
> > driver. If you run the module directly, some distinguished block of code
> > could be executed that wouldn't be if the module were "included" via
>
Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have not looked at SelfTest, but I have always done this with
>
> unless (defined wantarray) {
> # Self Test
> }
>
> This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is
> evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is in a void contex
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> unless (defined wantarray) {
> # Self Test
> }
>
> This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is
> evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is in a void context.
Although Gisle's recent patch changes this f
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> One-liners run on a Perl 6 binary should just be Perl 6 code. Do we
> really have to worry about backwards compatibility with one liners?
[ . . . ]
> Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be
> troublesome.
Yes, precisely. I
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole
> are strict/-w by default. But the "module main" tag causes the same
> problem Larry is opposed to with BASIC/PLUS "EXTEND". That is, every
> Perl 6 program begins with "module mai
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, John Porter wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > the more compatible
> > with Perl5 Perl6 is, the more likely it is to be accepted.
>
> I don't believe that's necessarily true.
> If Perl6 proves to be a significantly better Perl than Perl5,
> people will adopt it, especially if
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>
> > unless (defined wantarray) {
> > # Self Test
> > }
> >
> > This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is
> > evaluated in a scalar context. The
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> >
> > Although Gisle's recent patch changes this for "do" at least.
>
> Hm, I did not see that. Can someone explain what the patch changed
> or give me a link to the thread.
@foo = do "you";
now works
--
I will not suffer fools g
Andy Dougherty wrote:
> Yes, precisely. I often have one-liners embedded in larger shell scripts.
> Most of those survived the perl4->perl5 transition intact. I'd hope the
> same can be said for the perl5->perl6 transition.
This is exactly the situation that Larry mentioned on Wednesday as
an e
David Grove writes:
: [1] Strongs is pure Koine. I'd think Larry would be more of the Ionic
: type.
You might say I get a charge out of Homer. :-)
Actually, I've done more Attic than Ionic. And I haven't done enough
of any of them to get very far from my lexicon. But I started Greek at
Seatt
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
: > "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Nathan> This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked
: Nathan> with end up writing:
:
: Nathan>@foo[0]
:
: Nathan> Which works.
:
: "Works", for some odd meaning of the word
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> Ah OK. So I assume that
> do "you";
> will do the file in a void context
Theoretically, yes. (ie, probably not.)
--
If computer science was a science, computer "scientists" would study what
computer systems do and draw well-reas
> > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
>
> I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque
filenames for "opening" them and doing IO
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:57:28PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > Ah OK. So I assume that
> > do "you";
> > will do the file in a void context
>
> Theoretically, yes. (ie, probably not.)
>From bleadperl t/op/do.t:
if (open(DO, ">
> > > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
> >
> > I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
>
> Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
> open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque
> filenames for "opening" them
On 4/6/01 2:17 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> P.S. Larry's Second Law of Language Redesign: Larry gets the colon.
My initial reaction: Larry can keep it! ;)
(go ahead, make me a believer... :)
-John
Larry Wall wrote:
> There will probably be optional modifiers before colon
> for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an
> inner:* operator from and outer:* operator.
I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace.
> It also means that every operator has a functio
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:19:30PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > > > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type,
> > >
> > > I trust that you will think long and hard about that.
> >
> > Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an
> > open-ended story. It is c
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> So URLs are not
> literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
> may be too simplistic.
Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them.
I don't know if this is something we want to follow Rebol's
lead on, but it's something to look at.
--
John Por
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Doesn't look like another namespace, but rather an extension of an
> existing one to me.
An extension of a namespace? What's that?
Either "modifiers" will be symbols in an existing namespace,
or they will be in their own namespace.
--
John Porter
Simon Cozens wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> > I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace.
>
> Where?
Modifiers.
> And functions have attributes, so no new namespace.
You're saying modifiers and attributes will live in the
same namespace? Possible, I guess, but not necessarily
logical.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:34:07PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > And functions have attributes, so no new namespace.
>
> You're saying modifiers and attributes will live in the
> same namespace? Possible, I guess, but not necessarily
> logical.
Hmm. No, come to think of it, that wouldn't work.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > So URLs are not
> > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
> > may be too simplistic.
>
> Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them.
I doubt it. telephone:? fax:? lpp:?
> if (open(BLAH, ">mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
Ah yes. You did say "scheme", didn't you?
Well then, consider the PR value. ;-)
Adam Turoff wrote:
> If Rebol can handle all of those URL schemes, why bother with Perl
> in the first place?
Should I legitimize that with a response?
--
John Porter
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:36:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> > There will probably be optional modifiers before colon
> > for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an
> > inner:* operator from and outer:* operator.
>
> I balk at the proposition of Y
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:36:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace.
Where?
> > It also means that every operator has a function name,
>
> I would think that would be the case, regardless of the
> form the general operator syntax takes.
And functio
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:52:47PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > >
> > > Although Gisle's recent patch changes this for "do" at least.
> >
> > Hm, I did not see that. Can someone explain what the patch changed
> > or give me a link
Richard Proctor wrote:
> but what should
> @bar = @foo x 2;
> do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current
> behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs)
How is one significantly less useful than the other?
--
John Porter
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as
>> accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening
>> of that path other than the fact that it is a URL. This renders it pretty
>> useless as a structure to
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> > So URLs are not
>> > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
>> > may be too simplistic.
>>
>> Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with
> if (open(BLAH,">:URL","mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
>
> Now PerlIO/URL.pm has to know the semantics of /^mailto:/.
> If it does it can do DNS lookup for MX record for north.pole and
> presumably fail and return undef.
>
> Oops sorry that is perl5 ;-)
Which part? "Presumably", "fail"
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:42:18PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as
> >> accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening
> >> of that path other than the
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:37:35PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > So URLs are not
> > > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames
> > > may be too simplistic.
> >
> > Yeah. Bu
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:32:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > Doesn't look like another namespace, but rather an extension of an
> > existing one to me.
>
> An extension of a namespace? What's that?
> Either "modifiers" will be symbols in an existing namespace,
>
At 11:17 AM 4/6/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>Randal L. Schwartz writes:
>: > "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>:
>: Nathan> This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've
>worked
>: Nathan> with end up writing:
>:
>: Nathan>@foo[0]
>:
>: Nathan> Which
On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't
> see any reason that:
>
> @foo[1,2] = ;
>
> shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why
>
Fair enough
> @bar = @foo * 12;
>
> shouldn't assign
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:17:49AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Hence, :+ would be pairwise array addition.
Sounds quite reasonable.
> There will probably be optional modifiers before colon
> for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an
> inner:* operator from and oute
On Fri 06 Apr, John Porter wrote:
> Richard Proctor wrote:
> > but what should
> > @bar = @foo x 2;
> > do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current
> > behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs)
>
> How is one significantly less useful than the other?
>
Richard Proctor wrote:
> perhaps you are thinking of,
> the current behavior of @bar = (@foo) x 2
Yes, right. Opps.
--
John Porter
Dan Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> if (open(BLAH,">:URL","mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ...
>>
>> Now PerlIO/URL.pm has to know the semantics of /^mailto:/.
>> If it does it can do DNS lookup for MX record for north.pole and
>> presumably fail and return undef.
>>
>> Oops sorry that i
James Mastros wrote:
> > print $::OUT http://www.wall.org/~larry/index.html;
> Please, no! A URL isn't a /new/ type of literal, really.
> Either it's a > wierd form of a literal list, or it's a
> wierd type of file name, so you should open() it. Or it's
> a self-quoting literal, like Package
David Whipp wrote:
> It would be nice to say:
> $mySite = http://www.foo.bar/text.html;
Vs.
$mySite = new URL 'http://www.foo.bar/text.html';
I am far from convinced.
--
John Porter
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:08:39PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> I could go further: If I'm reading a URL of type html then, after reading
> it, I should be able to say:
>
> $header = $page->head;
> $title = $page->title;
A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program
in tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/5/01 12.15:
>2. package vs. module/class
>Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one
swoop. Cool.
>Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting. Forget
p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the
John Porter wrote:
> > $mySite = http://www.foo.bar/text.html;
> Vs.
> $mySite = new URL 'http://www.foo.bar/text.html';
>
> I am far from convinced.
Simon Coxens wrote
> A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program
> in than some that do.
> -- Dennis M. R
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to
> > perl6-language?
> >
> > *tap* *tap* is this thing on?
> >
> > Nat
>
> Me, I've been racking my brain to fig
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > I'd really rather not, and I don't think that was Larry's intention. I
> > > think rather it was "perl 5 warning/strict levels", not "parse as perl 5
> > > code". At least I hope tha
Dave Storrs wrote:
> being backwards compatible is unlikely to
> _cost_ us adherents and might well gain us some.
Yes, all other things being equal. But will they be?
IOW: at what cost backwards compatibility?
--
John Porter
49 matches
Mail list logo
