--
On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:26:16
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>*Alot of good answers to questions*
Appreciate the descent from the mountain to help clear things up down here.
-Erik
Is your boss reading your email? Probably
Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail.
Sign up today at http
I forgot to announce the call for questions here (sorry), but the
answers 9and the questions) to the first round of Ask The Parrot have
been posted over on use.perl.
http://use.perl.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/06/179233 for the interested.
--
Dan
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 10:53:11AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> Allison asked:
>
> > Hmmm... would C not have the same problem as C? It also
> > "can't decide whether to execute until it knows whether the loop is
> > going to iterate again".
>
> Yes, it does.
Then I agree with Miko, it's not
- Original Message -
From: "David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is this the same as saying that C can be followed by
> *any* statement? If not, then we would need user-defined
> control statements (a property on a sub?) that can be used
> in the "else" context.
Perhaps C is a binary operat
Oh. Sorry. I suppose there was no discussion because there were no
objections. I support it strongly. But everyone's already heard my
opinion, and my opinion, and my opinion about it, so I'll be quiet now.
Luke
On 6 May 2002, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> It's odd, folks are still talking about the
Miko O'Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Sorry, I thought I'd expressed agreement at some point. I like the
> "else\s+(if|while|for|loop)" construct very much, and I think the
> programmers of the world would like it too. I know a some people have
> issues with "where's the if" but it
> It's odd, folks are still talking about the icky elsstuff, but I never
> saw any discussion of my BNF proposal. Was it that no one saw it, that
> my BNF was too rusty, or the idea of abandoning elsif for (in
> pseudo-ebnf)
Sorry, I thought I'd expressed agreement at some point. I like the
"els
On Mon, 2002-05-06 at 12:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> |Oh! I have an idea! Why don't we make the lexer just realize a prefix
> |"els" on any operator. Then you could do C. :P
> |
> |My point is that, IMO, this whole "els" thing is completely preposterous.
> |I'm the kind of person that likes t
On Mon, 6 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> |> Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-)
> |
> |Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ...
>
> ]- unlessdo, unlesdont, unlessgrep, unlesstry
What's with this? unless doesn't do that,
perfect... in fact during the middle of the read someting similar come to my mind..
i.e the best way should be to have several in-loop-proprietes that we can test and
decide what to do ...
There have to be CAPITALISED words only for the block stuff ...
raptor
|> Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-)
|
|Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ...
]- unlessdo, unlesdont, unlessgrep, unlesstry
what about "elsunless/unlesselse" then :")
|On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 02:55:09PM -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
|> I still don't like the idea of Cs on loops. I already do an
|> instant double take with C of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
|> old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head).
|
|Me too. That's why the looping "else" should be s
|Oh! I have an idea! Why don't we make the lexer just realize a prefix
|"els" on any operator. Then you could do C. :P
|
|My point is that, IMO, this whole "els" thing is completely preposterous.
|I'm the kind of person that likes to keep down on keywords. And I never
|liked Perl5's C anyway; I
13 matches
Mail list logo
