Randal L. Schwartz:
# > "David" == David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
# David> Anyone know what the chances are that some
# enterprising C hacker
# David> can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems
# David> like it wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love
# to
> "David" == David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
David> can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
David> wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
David>
Brent Dax wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> I believe that the tokenizer remembers whether it's expecting a binary
> operator or Something Else. That's how it handles things like
> vs. numeric less-than (<).
Indeed : that's why
print $FH1 <$FH2>;
produces a syntax error.
--
If strain on the
David Wheeler:
# On 4/17/02 2:17 PM, "Graham Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
#
# > The problem with // is that it already has a meaning and although
# > perl6 will redefine it can we do so in perl5 ? I don't think we can.
#
# Oh yeah, you're right. Perl 5 would have to require that it
# be
On 4/17/02 2:17 PM, "Graham Barr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> The problem with // is that it already has a meaning and although perl6 will
> redefine it
> can we do so in perl5 ? I don't think we can.
Oh yeah, you're right. Perl 5 would have to require that it be m//, and that
would break a l
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:09:43PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
> can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
> wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
> later.
It is not
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:58:05PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On 4/17/02 1:51 PM, "Dave Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> > I hope you're referring to 5.8.x for some x != 0 ??? :-)
>
> Do you know how late in the development process the $coderef->() feature was
> added to Perl (in
On 4/17/02 1:51 PM, "Dave Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> I hope you're referring to 5.8.x for some x != 0 ??? :-)
Do you know how late in the development process the $coderef->() feature was
added to Perl (in whatever release that was)? Ask Randal to talk about it
sometime. ;-)
But
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:09:43PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
> can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
> wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
> later.
I hope yo
[Several people said something like "$var is rw will do it")
Ah, that's right. I had forgotten about this.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
Dave
On 4/17/02 1:20 PM, "Aaron Sherman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> This gets ugly when you mix in traditional C for (are we keeping that in
> Perl6?):
Yes, but it's name is changing to C.
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2002-04-17 at 11:23, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:38:59PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > I've got the horrible feeling that doing it this way will lead to
> > nasty ambiguities in parsing, but if that's not the case then I must
> > confess that I prefer this synt
Anyone know what the chances are that some enterprising C hacker
can/will/did get the // and //= operator into Perl 5.8? Seems like it
wouldn't be a huge deal to add, and I'd love to have it sooner rather than
later.
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler AIM: dwTh
In a message dated Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Dave Storrs writes:
> sub load_data ( \$filename; $version; @_ ) {
I think you can do exactly this with
sub load_data ( $filename is rw, $version, @_ ) {
Yes? Or maybe
sub load_data ( $filename is rw, $version, *@_) {
to make sure @_ g
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 11:15:15AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> Perhaps using \ in the signature to indicate p-b-r is not the
> best...it could confuse people into thinking that they will need to
> manually dereference the variable, which they shouldn't need to do.
>
> Is there a way t
On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> Piers wrote:
>
> > one could always handle the first case
> > more explicitly by doing:
> >
> >sub load_data ($filename; $version) {
> > $version = 1 if @_.length < 2;
> > ...
> >}
>
> Err...no. If you specify named parameters, you
On 4/17/02 5:38 AM, "Piers Cawley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> I've got the horrible feeling that doing it this way will lead to
> nasty ambiguities in parsing, but if that's not the case then I must
> confess that I prefer this syntax. Especially if you want to do
> something like:
>
> for
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 06:17:24PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> In Exegesis 4, Damian writes:
>
>
> It's important to note that writing:
>
>
> for @a; @b -> $x; $y {...}
> # in parallel, iterate @a one-at-a-time as $x, and @b one-at-a-time as
> $y
>
> is not the same as writing:
>
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
