Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Damian Conway wrote: > > Simon observed: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: >> > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias >> > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write >> > more-grammatically-corr

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Personally, I'd rather not deal with a toke.c that knows more of > /usr/dict/words than I do. use thesaurus; -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:17, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > > What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-) > > Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6 > interpreter in Perl 5 for testing. We ha

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Bryan C. Warnock sniped: > >> Okay, this part has me confused. > > > > And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping > > the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing > > both. > > What? You didn't test it before you po

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-) Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6 interpreter in Perl 5 for testing. We have the variable semantics sorted out, but properties might

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On 5/15/01 9:07 PM, Damian Conway wrote: > Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally > unset) property on the node reference would have returned C which > would undergo the usual boolean conversion in the C, and the usual > promotion to zero in the numerical context o

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:07, Damian Conway wrote: > John Siracusa wrote: >> Okay, this part has me confused. > > And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping > the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing > both. What? You didn't test it

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

John Siracusa wrote: > Okay, this part has me confused. And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing both. Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally unset) proper

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Damian Conway wrote: > Simon observed: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: >> >- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias >> > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write >> > more-grammatically-

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon observed: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias > > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write > > more-grammatically-correct statements such as "my $var has

Re: Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > The only worry/problem/etc that I wonder about is the potential overuse > of the "is" keyword. It is a very nice syntactic tool, but when I see > something like this: > >$*ARGS is chomped; > > I wonder if that wouldn't be better

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:55:41PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > fine.. except if it was about TMTOWTDI, both could have been included... There's more than one way not to do it, too. :) -- "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" --

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Edward Peschko writes: > Exactly. This has not been finalized in an Apocalypse - hence the question > whether or not it has been 'blessed'. > > So - has this decision been made? I've heard Larry saying things that make me think strict and -w will not be on by default. I'll leave it to him to c

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:25:34AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > > yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings' > > department. > > Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well. Exactly. This has n

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Okay, this part has me confused. Here we build up a node hash: my %node; %node{LEFT} = undef; %node{RIGHT} = undef; %node{VALUE} = $val is Found(0); $tree = %node; What has the Found property here? I look at that and I think the value associated with %node hash's VALUE

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon Cozens writes: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote: > > i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do > > similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone > > else to come up with the 7 other ways to prove owners

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings' > department. Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well. > well, better in the sense that it shows off perl6's style and new features. > And is shor

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

At 11:54 PM 5/15/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote: > > i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do > > similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone > > else to come up with the 7

Re: Must pseudo-hashes die?

At 03:20 PM 5/15/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: >At 07:47 PM 5/15/01 +, Ton Hospel wrote: >> > PSEUDO-HASHES MUST DIE! >> > >> >>I happen to like them > >I like the feature of a hash whose keys are fixed in the sense that you >have to jump through a hoop to add a new one. Without hav

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

> > For example, I see that 'use warnings' and 'use strict' are still at the top > > of the page. > > Yes. Is there some point you want to make about that? yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings' department. > > print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n"

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On 5/15/01 6:54 PM, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:49:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: >> Looks nicer to me. > > Did you know that other people might find other things nicer? > TMTOWDTI has not been ruled out for Perl 6. Yeah, yeah, but come on, who out there is running around

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote: > i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do > similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone > else to come up with the 7 other ways to prove ownership of a property :) Persona

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:49:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: > Looks nicer to me. Did you know that other people might find other things nicer? TMTOWDTI has not been ruled out for Perl 6. -- Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely. -- Genji

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On 5/15/01 5:59 PM, Edward Peschko wrote: > would be better off written as... ...speaking of which: my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2); What, no caps? my int ($PRE, $IN, $POST) is constant = (0..2); Looks nicer to me...or are all-caps vars reserved for internal use in Perl

Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword

So, I finally got around to reading the link Nat sent out: http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/05/08/exegesis2.html First off, nice job Damian (as always), it looks excellent. I like the examples of stuff like this: my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2); Awesome. Simple, Perlish, easy

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > >> - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias >>for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write >>more-grammatically-correct statements such as "my $var has >>Colo

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Edward Peschko writes: > Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'? What is open to > debate on this? As Simon says, ask whatever questions you want. > print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n"; > would be better off written as: > print "Post order: &show($root, $post)\n";

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write > more-grammatically-correct statements such as "my $var has > Colors(3)". Since 'are' is be

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Dave Storrs writes: > at first I was alarmed and a bit appalled at a lot of the > changes...e.g., the 'HASH $tree is rw' parameter declaration. > "Jesus," I thought "if I wanted a typed languaged, I'd use C++." > The more I read, however, the more I became convinced that these > were actually eleg

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

First of all: Damian, thank you for putting this together. This is a really good way to dispell the concerns/doubts/pick-a-word that people (including myself) have been having about whether Perl6 would be the language that we all know and love. There was a great deal of stuff in there and I

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:59:07PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'? It is impossible to answer this question without knowing what you mean by the word. Larry has seen and edited the article; is that what you mean? > What is open to debate on this?

Re: Must pseudo-hashes die?

At 07:47 PM 5/15/01 +, Ton Hospel wrote: > > PSEUDO-HASHES MUST DIE! > > > >I happen to like them I like the feature of a hash whose keys are fixed in the sense that you have to jump through a hoop to add a new one. Without having to download Tie::SecureHash and accept the other fe

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:32:46PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Damian's writing a series of articles parallel to Larry's Apocalypses. > These "Exegesis" articles will show full perl6 programs, with > commentary exlaining the new features. > > The first Exegesis (numbered 2, to keep in sync

Re: Perl, the new generation

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote: > Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered: > | Peter Scott writes: > | : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more > > > | : dramatic change in the name? >

Re: Apoc2 - concerns

Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered: | 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 t