On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:11:08AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> substr($foo, 1, 3) = "hi!"; # We all know this.
> splice(@foo, 1, 3) = @bar; # But the lack of this seems asymmetric
An originally we had
splice(@foo, 1, 3, @bar);
but not
substr($foo, 1, 3, "hi!");
which are more useful, IM
substr($foo, 1, 3) = "hi!"; # We all know this.
splice(@foo, 1, 3) = @bar; # But the lack of this seems asymmetric
$baz = $foo.bar;# Surely this is just overloaded "." being a
# subroutine in $foo's package called with a
# barew
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:22:12PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Will there be confusion with the _ that means "the file statted by
> the last -X test?" I doubt it: file tests need to bind tighter than
> the concat op and the problem is over.
Hey, that would make "_ _ __" legal Perl code. Abiga
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
At 01:16 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>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.
>
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 language. That's wha
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> I'd rather it be "cc" or "_" (I didn't like the underscore at first,
> but it's grown on me a little)
Comparing ~ and _ to available editors markup marks, _ is closer
to the sideways () that an editor might use to indicate that two words
should be joined together.
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 language. That's what
a pragma is. Even "my" could
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
At 09:16 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
>Larry Wall wrote:
>
>[wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6]
> >
> >In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare
> >exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that
> >we'll have any lack of style police trying t
At 04:19 PM 4/26/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>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,
>: b
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 01:45:02AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> I think many of us are resigned to losing . for concatination; I know
> I can live with that. I just don't want to have this result in ~, ^,
> or any other C-style punctuation operator getting renamed.
That's my position. I'd rath
Larry Wall wrote:
[wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6]
>
>In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare
>exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that
>we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce Standard Perl 6.
>
>Larry
As a member of a con
Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > How about borrowing from Objective C?
> > > >
> > > >[$object method("foo", "bar")];
> >
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> >$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
>
> $bar = method $obj()
>
> would be more consistent with perl's current
>
> $object = new Class()
>
> syntax.
Yes, well, some people wa
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:04:33PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > > In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
> > > messages not u
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> And I'm tired of hearing the argument that Perl programmers can't get
> used to a different operator for concatenation. I know better--after
> all, Perl is probably what got them used to . in the first place. If
> you can teach dogs t
On 26 Apr 2001 23:19:49 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>$bar = [$obj method() ]; # method call
$bar = method $obj()
would be more consistent with perl's current
$object = new Class()
syntax.
--
Bart.
18 matches
Mail list logo
