Damian Conway wrote:
> It would seem *very* odd to allow every symbol table *except*
> %MY:: to be accessed at run-time.
Well, yeah, that's true. How about we make it really
simple and don't allow any modifications at run-time to
any symbol table?
Somehow I get the feeling that "*very* odd" can'
Dan revealed:
> > How am I expected to produce fresh wonders if you won't let me
> > warp the (new) laws of the Perl universe to my needs?
> That's easy--you slip the pumpking or internals designer a 10-spot.
> Amazing what it'll do... :)
And how do you think I got five of my module
At 04:11 PM 9/4/2001 +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>I would envisage that mucking about with symbol tables would be no more
>common in Perl 6 than it is in Perl 5. But I certainly wouldn't want to
>restrict the ability to do so.
>
>How am I expected to produce fresh wonders if you won't let me warp
> I haven't seen details in an Apocalypse, but Damian's
> Perl 6 overview has a bit about it. The Apocalypse
> specifically mentions *compile-time* scope management,
> but Damian is, uh, Damian. (DWIMery obviously. ;)
Hmm.
It would seem *very* odd to allow every symbol table *ex
> > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
>
> For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I
> could make a good language case for and against it. It adds
> overhead on sub calls, which is a bad thing generally.
I would strongly like to see a guarante
> But since the current prototyping system... has a highly positive
> pressure gradient compared to the surrounding air,
Well...I think it's more a problem of "I do no' thin' dat word means
wha' you thin' it means".
People want prototypes to be parameter type specifiers,
when they're actua
At 11:47 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> > {
> > my $a = sub ($$) { code };
> > gork($a);
> > }
> >
> > sub gork {
> > my ($a) = shift;
> > $a->(@some_list); # <- Here
> > }
> >
> > The reason prototypes aren't checked at "Here" is because there real
iVAN wrote:
> As we read in Damian Conway- Perl6-notes, there will be
"...may be..."
(Remember, I'm only the shambling henchman ;-)
> a var-iterator that can be used to see how many times the cycle has
> been "traversed" i.e.
>
> foreach my $el (@ary) {
>.. do something
Some feedback.
> Syntax Overview
>
> Keywords
> continue, do, else, elsif, for, foreach, given, goto, grep, if, last,
> map, next, redo, sort, sub, unless, until, when, while
C and C
(C is not nearly so certain.)
> Conditional Statement Modifiers
>
> 6. [ L
I haven't seen details in an Apocalypse, but Damian's
Perl 6 overview has a bit about it. The Apocalypse
specifically mentions *compile-time* scope management,
but Damian is, uh, Damian. (DWIMery obviously. ;)
Is stuff like:
%MY::{'$lexical_var'} = \$other_var;
supposed to be a compile-time o
A few more ideas to put down, lest I lay wake all night, thoughts churning...
One.
Presumably, there will be an op for the actual calling of the subroutine.
That op can take an (extra) argument, with one of three values, that the
prototype checking can get to.
The first value indicates that th
"Bryan C. Warnock" wrote:
> {
> my $a = sub ($$) { code };
> gork($a);
> }
>
> sub gork {
> my ($a) = shift;
> $a->(@some_list); # <- Here
> }
>
> The reason prototypes aren't checked at "Here" is because there really
> isn't a way to know what the prototype was.
Um, that's not
On Monday 03 September 2001 10:46 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:32 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly
> > > > handle that.
> > >
> > > Ah, but calling in
At 10:32 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly handle
> > >that.
> >
> > Ah, but calling in the first way has two PMCs in as parameters, while the
> > second has o
On Monday 03 September 2001 10:27 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >To me, that seems only a language decision. This could certainly handle
> >that.
>
> Ah, but calling in the first way has two PMCs in as parameters, while the
> second has only one. Potentially at least. A world of difference there.
A
At 10:17 PM 9/3/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Monday 03 September 2001 09:30 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > A clever idea, and one I'd not though of. That's probably the best way to
> > do it. Has some other issues, like do we allow prototypes like:
> >
> >sub foo ($$) {};
> >
> > to be
On Monday 03 September 2001 09:30 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> A clever idea, and one I'd not though of. That's probably the best way to
> do it. Has some other issues, like do we allow prototypes like:
>
>sub foo ($$) {};
>
> to be called as:
>
>foo(@bar)
>
> if @bar has two elements in it?
A while ago, I posted some inconsistencies with scope declarators.
(http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg08028.html)
A few more related notions
$a = "test";
{
chop(my $a = our $a = "hello");
# The lexical is chopped
print "1-$a\n";
# But the global is printed
}
print "2-$a\
At 07:46 AM 9/2/2001 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nope, the cost will be paid on all sub calls. We at least need to
> > check on every sub call to see if there are multiple versions of the
> > functions. (We can't tell at compile time if it's a single or
At 10:11 PM 9/2/2001 -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Sunday 02 September 2001 07:49 pm, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Sep 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > > Are prototypes going to be checked at runtime now?
> >
> > For methods, at least. Dunno about subs, that's Larry's call. I could make
On Monday 03 September 2001 01:06 pm, Davíð Helgason wrote:
> We will be adding 'try' & 'catch'. 'finally' also? (or 'finalize' :-)
I've not heard anything definite on this.
>
> >16. [ LABEL: ] when expr : { block } # Note 5
> >
> >[Note 5. 'when' is only a valid construct whe
A few, hopefully relevant thoughts (some of them).
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>--
>
>Perl 6 Reference - Statements and Blocks
>(0.1/2001-09-01)
A beauty to behold, this!
>Syntax Overview
>
>Keywords
>continue, do, else, elsif, for, foreach, given, goto, grep, if, las
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> >The problem is, it appears DATA is only opened if there's an __END__
> >or __DATA__ tag. I don't remember it working this way...
> >
> >*shrug* We can fix that easy. :)
>
> No you can't - you run out of fd's pretty quick if ev
23 matches
Mail list logo
