[no longer sent to perl6-internals because it's not relevant there]
I see a problem . . whether the problem's with me or the grammar, that's
for you people to decide.
Do I read this part of the grammar correctly?
> sv_literal: /(?:\d+(?:\.\d+)?|\.\d+)(?:[Ee]-?\d+)?/
> | '{' h
Back to this again . .
> > ..., and someone pointed out that it had a problem
> > with code like "{ some_function_returning_a_hash() }". Should it give a
> > closure? Or a hash ref? ...
> Oh, well now that it's stated this way... (something went wrong in my
> brain when I read the
> I still have my vote on %() as a hash constructor in addition to {}. :)
The problem I see with that is that % as a prefix implies a
*dereferencing*, though years of Perl5 conditioning like this:
%{ $mumble } = return_a_hash();
print_hash( %{ $mumble } );
(Yes, the braces are optional; I'm
> > Using %(...) to create a hashref, as { ... } does in Perl5, would go
> > against all that, because the purpose of making a hashref is to
> > *reference* something. Now a unary % operator/sigil/prefix might mean
> > referencing, or it might mean dereferencing, depending on whether the
> > symb
Sorry, I was being too terse in my original message, I guess some of the
meaning got lost.
When I said:
> > If %(...) makes a shallow copy of its innards, as Perl5's { ... } does,
> > then how do you impose hash context onto something without doing the
> > copy?
What I meant to say was:
> > Spea
Damian wrote:
> Debbie Pickett asked:
> > So my question is: why two words for regular expressions, but only one
> > for subroutines? Are "rule" and "rx" just alternate spellings, much as
> > Perl5's "for" and "foreach" are? If so, why the two keywords?
> > If not, why not?
> They are not quite
Note! Some of the following is hypothetical, not strictly based on Apocalypses
and such. Now that your brain is in the right mode:
Uri wrote:
> >>>>> "DAP" == Deborah Ariel Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DAP> C allows us to define both named a
> > The only extra piece of syntactic sugar that C is giving us over
> > C[*] is the ability to have arbitrary delimiters.
> Not quite arbitrary. Alphanumerics aren't allowed, nor are colon or
> parens.
Of course. I didn't want to poison my entire sentence with footnotes
for the obvious excepti
> Again, it would be nice to be able to flag these to the compiler in a
> rule:
> rule thrice :count { <={.count < 4}> }
> / a? /
> Note that the C would cause the thrice count-rule to be matched
> non-greedily because the regex parser knows that it's a count, not a
> generic rule.
Going
Damian wrote:
> (b) the symmetry of:
> Logical:&& || !!
> Bitwise:.& .| .!
> Superpositional: & | !
> is important...mnemonically, DWIMically, and aesthetically.
When I
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 12:16:34PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > ... using backtick in vector operators ... A pair of backticks could
> > > be used if the vector-equals distinction is required:
> > > @a `+`= @b;
> > > @a `+=` @b;
> > Thats ugly, IMO.
> Oh, I wasn't claiming that it'
> > get guillemot
> Taken.
Extra credit for those of you who remembered that that's a bird, not a
punctuation mark.
--
Debbie Pickett http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~debbiep [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Is it, err, Mildred? O.K., no. How 'bout - Diana? Rachel?" "Ariel, her name is
Luke wrote:
> When junctions collapse, is that reflected back in the original
> junction, as it should be (QM-wise)?
>
> $foo = 1 | 2 | 4
> print $foo;
> # Foo is now just one of (1, 2, 4); i.e. not a junction
> [...]
Just a sanity check, but is this kind of behaviour something we sti
> Supercomma!
> [snip]
> Larry then confessed that he was thinking of changing the declaration of
> parallel for loops from:
> for @a ; @b ; @c - $a ; $b ; $c {...}
> to something like:
> for parallel(@a, @b, @c) - $a, $b, $c {...}
Assuming that semicolon is no longer goi
Ah . . . one message with two things I wanted to talk about. Good.
Allison wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 01:24:30PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > So what's wrong with:
> >
> > sub foo($param is topic //= $= // 5)# Shorter form with $=
> > sub foo($param is topic //= $CALLER::_ // 5)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > But in Perl 6, the consistency between a method's parameter list and its
> > argument list *is* checked at run-time, so passing the wrong number of
> > arguments is (quite literally) fatal.
> But wait! If we can check how many parameters to pass, we k
Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deborah Ariel Pickett) writes:
> > That works, with one big proviso. You have to have predeclared all
> > possible methods in the class to which the object belongs, AND each
> > method in that class (and all defined subclasses)
> On 2003-01-07 at 11:31:13, Mr. Nobody wrote:
> > .length is unneeded, since an array gives its length in numeric context, so
> > you can just say +@a.
> Unneeded, but harmless.
Getting off topic here (a bit), but I think it's a Mistake to have
.length mean different things on an array ["Number
> > Perhaps .size for number-of-elements and .length for length-of-string
> > would work?
>
> This would just cause them to Think About Things A Different But
> Equally Wrong Way: as assembly language objects whose SIZE in bytes is
> the determining component of their existence.
>
I am happy to
> SUMMARY
> C<$var ?= $x : $y> as a shortcut for C<$var = $var ? $x : $y>.
>
>
> DETAILS
> We have ||=, +=, -=, etc. These shortcuts (I'm sure there's some fancy
> linguistic term for them) save us a few keystrokes and clean up the code.
>
> So, concerning C, I find myself doing this type of th
> > I guess what I'm saying is that someone needs to provide a real-world,
> > non-contrived, example showing ??= in use.
> Fair enough. Real World, Non-Contrived: In all databases that I've ever
> worked with there are exactly two possible values for a boolean database
> field. Those two values
> It would be trivial with a grammar munge to implement this (heck, I
> did it with a source filter in Perl 5). Surely CPAN6 (6PAN/CP6AN/??)
> will come out with one of these right off the bat, so you could do:
>
> use Grammar::ImplicitSemicolon;
>
> Or something like that, and be done with
> print "---" # must read the next line to
> # figure out if new line is statement terminator or not
>if $condition";
Yes, let's expand that example, and assume the "semicolons optional
where obvious" proposal.
sub foo
{
print "abcde"
if $condition
{
print "fghij"
}
}
> I'm trying, and failing, to accurately and definitively answer the
> question "what's the difference between an array and a list in Perl6?"
> If someone can come up with a simple but accurate definition, it would
> be helpful.
While I like the glib "Arrays are variables that hold lists" explan
> >While I like the glib "Arrays are variables that hold lists" explanation
> >that worked so well in Perl5, I think that Perl6 is introducing some
> >changes to this that make this less true.
> Like what?
Well, like the builtin switch statement, which was what I was trying to
show in my bad examp
> But is it OK for a list to be silently promoted to an array when used
> as an array? So that all of the following would work, and not just 50%
> of them?
> (1..10).map {...}
> [1..10].map {...}
And somehow related to all this . . .
Let's assume for the moment that there's still a fun
> Here are some of the answers from my own notes. These behaviors have
> all been confirmed on-list by the design team:
>
> An @array in list context returns a list of its elements
> An @array in scalar context returns a reference to itself (NOTE1)
> An @array in numeric (scalar) context retur
> > 2) (4, 1, 2) + 7 returns (9). This is C comma behavior, and I always
> >found it incredibly non-intuitive. I'd really like to get away
> >from this, even if it means that this expression is a fatal error
> >"Can't add scalar to list".
[...]
> Agreed, however, that (2) is icky. My
Sort of a rehash on an old topic, but there's new stuff now with A6.
Mike Lazarro had been making a list of all the operators that Perl6 has.
The latest version I could find was Take 6 (at
http://archive.develooper.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg12130.html).
So, my questions:
1. Is there a more recent
29 matches
Mail list logo
