a lot of things, not just blooming.
For instance, I only started writing this talk yesterday. Another one
of these Just In Time talks. I'll probably finish it sometime
tomorrow. Lateness is one of my specialties. Someday I'll be dead,
and when you refer to me as "the Late Larry W
Simon Cozens writes:
: You're learning Japanese, right? It's gotta be "toriaezu".[1] :)
Yes, but if we go down that route, we're gonna end up with all the
verbs at the end. Instead of "print @foo", we get something like:
@foo wa kaite kudasai;
Larry
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
: On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 06:47:59PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:32:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > > Rename the local operator? Yeah, I think we ought to do that. It
: > > confuses people when we call it local(). The
Joshua N Pritikin writes:
: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/python/2000/10/04/stackless-intro.html
Perl 5 is already stackless in that sense, though we never implemented
continuations. The main impetus for going stackless was to make it
possible to implement a Forth-style treaded code interprete
David L. Nicol writes:
: Steve Fink wrote (and I edited slightly):
:
: > I can't figure out why so many people misinterpret my RFC12
: > as requiring a solution to the halting problem.
:
: a large class of incompletely expressed
: suggestions appear to get grouped into
:
: "This requires solv
Adam Turoff writes:
: If Perl bytecode were to become threaded, it would be rather troublesome.
Wasn't actually suggesting it, though similar issues also arise for
compiling down to efficient C, JVM, or C# IL. Optimizing for Least
Surprise means different things in different contexts, but I'd ha
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
: > * XS, the system for extending Perl with C or C++, will be replaced
: > with something much easier to use. This will give people very
: > convenient access to existing code libraries, and write C or C++
: > subroutines that can be called as Perl subrout
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
: *cough* \C *is* taken.
:
: > >also \U has a meaning in double quotish strings.
:
: "\Uindeed."
Bear in mind we are redesigning the language. If there's a botch we
can think about fixing it.
Though maybe not on -internals... :-)
Larry
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Fair enough. I think there are some cases where there's a base/combining
: pair of codepoints that don't map to a single combined-character code
: point. Not matching on a glyph boundary could make things really odd, but
: I'd hate to have the checking code on by default,
Garrett Goebel writes:
: Someone please clue me in. A pointer to an RFC which defines the use of
: colons in Perl6 among other things would help.
Heh. If you read the RFCs, you'll discover one of the basic rules of
language redesign: everybody wants the colon. And it never seems to
occur to peo
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 07:21 AM 3/27/2001 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: >Dan Sugalski writes:
: >Assume that in practice most of the normalization will be done by the
: >input disciplines. Then we might have a pragma that says to try to
: >enforce level 1, level 2, level 3 if your
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I'm not sure that raw's the right word, given that the data is really
: Unicode. It's not raw in the sense that a JPEG image or executable is raw data.
I'm suggesting it might be raw in that very sense, and simultaneously
be perfectly valid "internal" Unicode. Otherwise y
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
David Whipp writes:
: You may be right that there are no useful literals other than
: strings, integers, reals and lists. OTOH, if we are going to
: construct a meta-language which supports multiple syntaxes,
: then it is very likely that each application-specific language
: would have its own lit
Dan Sugalski writes:
: If we're going to provide a mechanism to define the syntax of
: a mini-language (or a maxi one, I suppose, though there are probably better
: ways to do it) then the details of colons and constants and what-have-yous
: are pretty close to irrelevant.
I expect that most o
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:16 AM 4/17/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
: >On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
: > > People seem to think that telling Perl 5 apart from Perl 6 is trivial.
: >
: >My reading of Larry's comments is that it will be _made_ trivial at the
: >
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 12:17 AM 4/20/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
: >Recursive parsing is not needed. We have the HERE string, which can
: > include anything in with the rest of the code, by looking for the
: > end-token. The perl5 Inline module works that way.
Indeed, Perl 5 works th
: At 06:20 PM 4/20/2001 -0300, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
: >Please tell me if there really is an use for overloading && and || that
: >would not be better done with source filtering, then I will (maybe)
: >reconsider my opinion.
I think it's a category error to talk about overloading && and |
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
: What is someone wants to define matrices and have both cross product
: and dot product?
At some point, there aren't enough operators, and new ones have to
be named somehow, or old ones usurped. In any event, new ops either
have to be declared with a lexical scope, or
Nick Ing-Simmons writes:
: >You really have to talk about overloading boolean context
: >in general.
:
: Only if you are going to execute the result in the normal perl realm.
: Consider using the perl parser to build a parse tree - e.g. one to
: read perl5 and write perl 6. This works for all ex
As a general rule of thumb, if you sort your structs into decreasing
size, it usually comes out right. That is, put all your 64-bit items
first, then all your 32-bit items, then 16-bit, then 8-bit. Then there
are no "holes" except the one at the end, which most compilers are
pretty good at keepi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Okay, then:
:
: @foo = @( @a + @b );# @(), $(), and %() set context.
:
: Easier to identify the operators, and little or no question about the
: context...
Well, sure, though it was already in list context from the assignment...
I do expect that @() and
Glenn Linderman writes:
: Why not
:
:@foo = @( a + b ); # element by element add of @a and @b
I expect that's be written:
@foo := @a + @b;
where the := says to treat the left side as a prototype, and a bare
array in a prototype is going to put scalar context on the right side,
and a
Simon Cozens writes:
: On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:48:35AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > :@foo = @( a + b ); # element by element add of @a and @b
: > I expect that's be written:
: >
: > @foo := @a + @b;
:
: Two different assignment operators? I can understand the inte
Bart Lateur writes:
: Or, in analogy to "cmp", "gt" etc:
:
: $a = $b plus $c;
: or
: $a = $b cat $c;
It would probably have been C if it had come to that.
Larry
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Dav=ED=F0?= Helgason writes:
: I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
: more acceptable to the world of javacsharpbasic droids. Which is some
: kind of goal, no?
Consider it a given that we'll be using . for dereferencing. (Possibly
with -> as a s
John Porter writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > I do expect that @() and $() will be used for interpolating list and
: > scalar expressions into strings, and it is probably the case the $()
: > would be a synonym for scalar(). @() would then be a synonym for
: > the mythical list() oper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On 4/23/01 3:25 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : >From a trainer's point of view, having two operators which look very
: > similar, : are used for the same thing in various different languages, and do
: > *almost* : the same thing but not quite, is comple
Branden writes:
: I'm starting to be a bit worried with what I'm reading...
:
: 1) Use $obj.method instead of $obj->method :
:
: The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms and
: VBisms to our pretty C/C++-oid Perl? Why brake compatibility with Perl 5
: code (and Pe
John Porter writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > Surely it's not the . itself, but the requirement that you fit everything
: > into that one syntactic mold. Perl's not going to do that.
:
: I'm not opposed to the change, but I want to make one point:
: certain characters (lik
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >
: > : I _really_ think dot-syntax would make perl prettier as well as make it
: > : more acceptable to the world of javacsharpbasic droids. Which is some
: > : kind of goal, no?
: >
: > Consider it a given that we'll be us
Stephen P. Potter writes:
: Maybe this is a crazy (or stupid) idea, but why couldn't we use the $, @,
: and % characters?
:
: @foo = @a @+ @b; # element by element add
Because it's difficult to tell the operators from the terms visually.
Larry
David L. Nicol writes:
: Dan Sugalski wrote:
: > I'm not a parser guy by any means (unfortunately) but we have
: > the distinct possibility of completely replacing all of the
: > parser rules after token X appears, whatever that token might
: > be. (Heck, we may have the possibility of replacing t
Bart Lateur writes:
: On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:14:50 -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
:
: >Using + for concat: no!
: >
: >My vote is to use . and require space before and after.
: >$this.$is.$ugly.$anyway ;)
:
: My vote is to ditch the concat operator altogether. Hey, we have
: interpolation!
:
:
Edward Peschko writes:
: I guess my question is what would be the syntax to access hashes? Would
:
: $hashref.{ }
:
: be that desirable? I really like ->{ } in that case..
It won't be either of those. It'll simply be $hashref{ }.
Larry
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Resizing the vtable at runtime is a really dodgy thing. There are some
: rather huge threading implications here--changing their size (as opposed to
: using up a limited number of "uncommitted" spots we leave at the end) means
: potentially having to move all the vtables
Nick Ing-Simmons writes:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >I think using overloading to write a parser is going to be a relic of
: >Perl 5's limitations, not Perl 6's.
:
: I am _NOT_ using overloading to write a parser.
: Parse::Yapp is just fine for writing pars
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Unless Larry says otherwise, this:
:
:my num @foo;
:
: will have the data portion of the @foo PMC point off to a block of memory
: with floats jammed end-to-end in it.
I'm not going to say other.
Larry
Edward Peschko writes:
: Ok, so what does:
:
: my %hash = ( 1 => 3);
: my $hash = { 1 => 4};
:
: print $hash{1};
:
: print?
4. You must say %hash{1} if you want the other.
Larry
Bart Lateur writes:
: Ok. So how about hash slices? Is $hash{$a, $b}, the faked
: multidimensional hash, going to go?
Yes, fake multidimensional hashes will be defenestrated.
Larry
Bart Lateur writes:
: Er... hip hip hurray?!?!
:
: This is precisely the reason why I came up with the raw idea of
: highlander variables in the first place: because it's annoying not being
: able to access a hash passed to a sub through a hash reference, in the
: normal way. Not unless you do al
Nathan Wiger writes:
: Now, it may be that all the "We should use ." people are just keeping
: quiet, or think it's obvious why this is a benefit, but I'm unconvinced.
: Again, I'm open-minded, but the only argument I've really heard is to
: make Perl more Java/Python-like. This doesn't sway me at
Eric Roode writes:
: John Porter wrote:
: >IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
:
: I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down tighter that almost any
language that ever existed.
: Super-flexible,
Dan Sugalski writes:
: And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program
: essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out
: reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today,
: but that's probably more due to its RPN syntax)
P
Dan Sugalski writes:
: It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of
: some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it.
: I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in.
: Rather having "use site_policy;" set limits tha
John Porter writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're
: > going to speak in before they start speaking.
:
: On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy
: of pre-declaring things that change the l
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser
: tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may
: well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start:
:
:use site_policy qw(Python);
:
: for modules that wer
Simon Cozens writes:
: Hey, that would make "_ _ __" legal Perl code. Abigail, Abigail!
Now we just need to make "... ___ ..." mean something exceptional.
: (I still prefer ~, but acknowledge that this is just bikeshed painting.)
Bikesheds need to be painted occasionally.
Larry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:> use OReilly::Policy;
:>
:> or
:>
:> use Mongolian::Navy::ProcurementOffice::Policy;
:>
:> might be more in order.
:
: You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
: the general. Surely that should be:
:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
: policy decision.
Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
named after the actual site, not some generic name like "Policy". I
think policy files are inherently non-p
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 03:08 PM 4/25/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
:
: >At 01:52 PM 25/04/2001 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
: >>Seriously, I don't see why this should be a scary thing. So, the opcode
: >>table's extendable. So what? It'll make language X mode simpler, for some
: >>value of X, if
Michael G Schwern writes:
: (grep {...} @stuff)[0] will work, but its inelegant.
It's inelegant only because the slice doesn't know how to tell the
iterator it only needs one value. If it did know, you'd call it
elegant. :-)
Larry
Bart Lateur writes:
: Because you might have a wantarray situation that expects no values?
:
: () =3D whateveryouwant();
:
: You can always expect one more than is on the LHS.
:
: How is this currently handled with split()?
It fakes up a third argument that is one more than the length of
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I'd really like to get into the details of what is and isn't valid for the
: optimizer to do, though I expect it's still a little early in the
: Apocalypse season for that.
Doubtless we'll do as other compilers do, and have a little knob you
just keep turning up until som
David Grove writes:
: Larry, et. al.: Is this similarity on purpose?
Yes, but only becase .NET is a VM, not because it's from MicroSoft.
The basic goal is to have a Perl VM that can sit easily on other VMs,
whether .NET's or Java's or our own. Another example of competing
by cooperating, which
H.Merijn Brand writes:
: On Wed, 2 May 2001 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Michael G Schwern writes:
: > : (grep {...} @stuff)[0] will work, but its inelegant.
: >
: > It's inelegant only because the slice doesn't know how to tell th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:> >Hopefully the "something similar", I hope in Perl 6 we will able to
:> >bury the "0 but true" workaround to the backyard on a moonless night :-)
:>
:> Especially since you don't need it. "0E0" and "0.", to name just two,
:> work just as well. ;-
Edward Peschko writes:
: > : (is a nice city in Italy with a great symbol, the tower of Pisa).
: > :
: > : a'P' at the beginning, which means 'Perl',
: > : an 'I' which may mean 'Interpreter',
: > : a'S' which may means'Six'
: > : an 'A' which may
Dan Sugalski writes:
: That's cool. I was just thinking it might not be a bad idea for us to set=20
: some equivalencies up in advance. If not, that's fine too. (I'll just slip=
: =20
: them in while you're not looking... :)
Hmm. Harks back to the colonial era: "I claim these brackets in the
nam
Nathan Wiger writes:
: > : This one. I see a filehandle in *boolean* context meaning "read to $_",
: > : just like the current "while ()" magic we all know and occasionally
: > : love. I'd expect $FOO.readln (or something less Pascalish) to do an
: > : explicit readline to a variable other than $_
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Have you considered allowing Unicode characters as alternatives to some of
: the less pleasant looking bits? $foo<<1>> (where << and >> are the double
: angle characters) as an alternative to $foo\Q[1] if the user's got the
: characters handy?
Actually, my first thought
David L. Nicol writes:
: Not a problem. \Q means quotemeta, except immediately following
: a interpolated identifier. You want to start metaquoting immediately
: after a curious interpolation? use \Q\Q.
The word "except" should be a red flag that you're trying to define an
exception. We're try
Edward Peschko writes:
: also - why does it have to be tied to perl (in name) at all?
Er, because we're writing it?
: I like the idea
: that it would *not* be tied to perl, ie: it would be more generic if it was
: not named after it.
Well, the fact that Tcl and Tk both start with T didn't st
Edward Peschko writes:
: Anyways, my one curiosity that sticks out would be: why \Q as being a way to
: disambiguate? You could do the same thing with:
:
: print "$foo\[1]\n"
: vs
: print "$foo[1]\n";
Not good enough. Consider what this might means:
m/$foo\[a-z]\n/
Is it matching a litera
Simon Cozens writes:
: On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
: > : while ($STDIN) { ... }
: > I'm wondering what this will do?
: >$thingy = $STDIN;
: > This seems to have two possibilities:
: >1. Make a copy of $STDIN
:
: This one. I see a filehandle in *boole
Richard Proctor writes:
: In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
: ambiguious.
:
: It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
: proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar].
Hmm, yes, that's a problem. I'd for
Larry Wall writes:
: Richard Proctor writes:
: : In Apocalypse 2, \Q is being used for two things, and I believe this may be
: : ambiguious.
: :
: : It has the current \Quote meaning admitibly \Q{oute} it is also being
: : proposed for a null token disambiguate context. As in $foo\Q[bar
David L. Nicol writes:
: I am going to miss doublequoting being the default quoting for
: here strings. I find that to be a very nice optimization and
: would like to know more about the reasoning behind taking it
: away. I worry that official standard p6 will be more difficult
: to use than off
Nathan Wiger writes:
: You know, I was just thinking about this, and I agree with Dan. Actually,
: there's some big problems in trying to get rid of <> and make Perl do the
: "right thing" in boolean context (like the while loop example). Consider:
:
:$FH = open " a shortcut to the
: proposed
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 09:32 AM 5/8/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: >Perl 6 might not put all the elements of @b on the stack as a temporary
: >list. Rather, it might just put \@b marked as expandable. (It might
: >also have to put some kind of copy-on-write lock on @b to kee
Nathan Wiger writes:
: First off, before I forget to mention it, nice job on Apoc2 Larry! You are
: the man. I know alot of us on p6l can seem like harsh critics at times, but
: it's only because we love Perl so much. ;-)
We'll have to do something about that. :-)
: Anyways, in addition to the
Simon Cozens writes:
: On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 01:32:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
: > a syntactic loop control iterator object
:
: I surely hope you're joking.
It could certainly be argued that anything you can put a label on is an
object by some definition or other. And certainly it turns in
John Porter writes:
: Peter Scott wrote:
: > Even if it has a
: > fixed-length prototype, is Perl smart enough to know that it can't be
: > called as an object method, bypassing prototype checking?
:
: Maybe p6 won't have that loophole.
It won't, if the type of the object can be determined at
: > >is => typing, inheritance, etc.
: > >has => composition, aggregation, etc.
: >
: > True, but those are basic OO concepts, which don't neatly apply to
: > property-lists (a very old Lisp concept that Perl6 is adopting).
Well, you can think of it like that, but I'm actually trying for some
Me writes:
: > So bool would perhaps be a synthetic property that has opposite
: polarity
: > from bit? I can see that, sort of. It's something like electrons
: being
: > negative, thank you Mr. Franklin.
:
: s/bit/yes/
:
: yes?
:
: And, despite perl5's use of no as the opposite
: of use, and
Simon Cozens writes:
: On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 03:00:51PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
: > Bit of a digression; but, the dynamicity of a language is in
: > no way implicated by the number of methods in one build-in
: > class. (Besides, this class will have at least three.)
:
: Ooh, at least three.
John Porter writes:
: Pardon me if someone has already suggested this, but...
: Couldn't labels really be (aliases to) iterator objects?
: So that
: next FOO
: really *does* mean
: FOO.next
Ordinary "next" methods don't do a goto.
Larry
Nathan Wiger writes:
: One thing I think we should avoid is as many "special cases" as possible.
: This is already why people hate <> currently - because it does both glob()
: and readline().
:
: I would say that <> having history is actually a good thing. It's a
: foundation, really, since readl
Lipscomb, Al writes:
: --_=_NextPart_001_01C0D71B.8F67C8EA
: Content-Type: text/plain;
: charset="iso-8859-1"
:
:
: >
: > $$STDIN # Return one element regardless of context.
: > @$STDIN # Return number of element wanted by context.
: > *$STDIN # Ret
Simon Cozens writes:
: On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:47:19PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
: > Not that there are any such people. Yet.
:
: Indeed. And I suspect that the first Perl 6 programmers are Perl 5
: programmers, who know damned well what "next FOO" means.
Well, it's certainly the case that "
Simon Cozens writes:
: This also led me to think about what happens when we introduce new built-ins.
: Perl 5 has had a complete built-in freeze for a long long time now because
: you can't bring in a new built-in without risking smacking subroutines in
: old code.
Right, that's been an impedimen
David L. Nicol writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > Syntactically speaking it's too ambiguous to have both a unary < and a
: > bracketing <>.
:
: Cool. Do we get a > operator to use as an l-value, instead of print?
:
: >$log = join localtime, 'difficult
Dan Sugalski writes:
: We'd want an alternative opcode running loop for all this, and it could
: easily enough check times, as could special opcodes. Long-running codes
: could also check at reasonable breakpoints. (Still in trouble with C
: extensions, but that's pretty much a guarantee)
It's
Eric Roode writes:
: >And the fact is, I've always loathed qw(), despite the fact that I
: >invented it myself. :-)
: > -- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:
:
: Well, one person's ugly is another person's joy forever.
:
: Regardless of the aesthe
Peter Scott writes:
: At 01:51 AM 5/6/01 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: >The debate rages on: Is Perl Bactrian or Dromedary?
:
: It's a Dromedary, it says so in the Colophon.
:
: But maybe the symbol of Perl 6 should be a Bactrian, with the extra hump
: symbolizing the increased power.
:
: You k
Dave Mitchell writes:
: | anyone know precisely what the following means?
:
: "K&R" style for indenting control constructs
Strictly speaking, it means you always put the opening bracket on the
same line as the keyword, and only worry about lining up the closing
bracket:
: | my personal pet peev
Larry Wall writes:
: Dave Mitchell writes:
: : | anyone know precisely what the following means?
: :
: : "K&R" style for indenting control constructs
:
: Strictly speaking, it means you always put the opening bracket on the
: same line as the keyword, and only worry about lining
Dave Mitchell writes:
: My thinking behind "if fails on one, avoid on all" was that if it failed
: on at least one, then it may well fail on others that you dont have access
: to - either now or in the future, and thus perhaps isnt as good an optimisation
: as you figured. The other way would to b
I'd just like to point out that it's already becoming fairly easy
to establish a bare alias for a scalar variable even in Perl 5:
my $foo;
my sub foo : lvalue { $foo }
This sort of thing will only get easier in Perl 6, when people can pull
in their own grammatical rules to enable them to
David Grove writes:
: Probably rehashing (no pun intended) a lost cause, but this sounds logical
: to me, if you're referring to something similar to PHP's Array['text']
: notation. I.e.,
:
: $array[1]
: $hash{'one'}
:
: becoming
:
: @group['one']
Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you don
Michael G Schwern writes:
: On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it. The
: > typical Perl 6 program is not going to look very different from the
: > typical Perl 5 program. The danger of us continuall
Peter Scott writes:
: So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
: dramatic change in the name?
I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if
they subconsciously think we're taking continuity into consideration.
Which we are, albeit not at a
Hey, we could call it Perl 9 from Outer Space. No wait...
Larry
Dave Storrs writes:
: < QUOTE LARRY >
: Dave Storrs writes:
: : You know, it would be really cool if you specify the number of
: : lines you wanted like so:
: :
: : <$STDIN # One line
: : *<$STDIN# All available lines
: : *4<$STDIN
Edward Peschko writes:
: On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:43:34AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > Peter Scott writes:
: > : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more
: > : dramatic change in the name?
: >
: > I'm inclined to think that people wi
Hillary writes:
: >I happen to like $ and @. They're not going away in standard Perl as
: >long as I have anything to do with it. Nevertheless, my vision for Perl
: >is that it enable people to do what *they* want, not what I want.
: >
: >Larry
:
: If only that were true...But it isn't true. It
Dave Storrs writes:
: You know, it would be really cool if you specify the number of
: lines you wanted like so:
:
: <$STDIN # One line
: *<$STDIN# All available lines
: *4<$STDIN # Next 4 lines
:
: Or even:
:
: *$num_l
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 08:40 AM 5/10/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: >Dave Mitchell writes:
: >: Content-MD5: FiIz8m/ma8enU5CTBqhsQw==
: >: X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.4.2 SunOS 5.8 sun4u sparc
: >: X-Spam-Rating: onion.valueclick.com 1.6.2 0/1000/N
: >:
: >:
Me writes:
: Larry:
: > Currently, @ and [] are a promise that you don't intend to use string
: > indexing on this variable. The optimizer can make good use of this
: > information. For non-tied arrays of compact intrinsic types, this
: > is going to be a major performance win in Perl 6.
:
: As
1 - 100 of 3012 matches
Mail list logo
