Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> >> > hashes can now take objects as keys and won't just stringify them.
> >>
> >> Correct. But I believe that's only if the hash has a prope
On Mon, 2002-09-02 at 23:50, Trey Harris wrote:
> No. $0{x} would be set to "grass". $x would stay as 2. $x is in a
> different scope from the hypothetical, so it doesn't get touched.
Ok, it's just taking some time for me to get my head around just what
C and C are, but I'm getting there. Thi
In a message dated 2 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> I'm working on a library of rules and subroutines for dealing with UNIX
> system files. This is really just a mental exercise to help me grasp the
> new pattern stuff from A5.
>
> I've hit a snag, though, on hypothetical variables. How would
I'm working on a library of rules and subroutines for dealing with UNIX
system files. This is really just a mental exercise to help me grasp the
new pattern stuff from A5.
I've hit a snag, though, on hypothetical variables. How would this code
work?
{
my $x = 2;
my $y = "Th
On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 10:00 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> No, I never said (nor intended to imply) that. Note that I carefully
> avoided the
> word "alias" in my description of this technique. ;-)
That was my doing. Sorry folks.
David
--
David Wheeler
On Monday, September 2, 2002, at 03:44 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
>> my Date $date .= new('Jun 25, 20002');
>
> H. That's a very interesting idea.
> I like it.
Hallelujah! I like it, too! It's only one character more than my
original suggestion!
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler
Damian Conway wrote:
> One possibility is that a modifier is
> implemented via a special class:
>
> my class Decomment is RULE::Modifier
>is invoked(:decomment) {
> method SETUP ($data, $rule) {
> ...
> }
> # etc.
>
Uri Guttman wrote:
> but what about mixing pairs and scalars which was the core of this
> thread?
Then you get whatever behaviour you defined the hash to give.
> by default it seems assigning such a list to a hash would use
> the pairs as 2 elements
It's not the right way to think about wha
Mike Lambert wrote:
> class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
>
> class DateManipulator;
> our Date $date2manip;
> ...date manip methods here...
>
> An external class is thus unable to do:
> $DateManipulator::date2manip = new Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh()
>
> Is that correct?
Ye
Damian Conway wrote:
> Trey Harris wrote:
>
> > An alias? Isn't
> >
> > class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
> >
> > a new class declaration, declaring 'Date' as a subclass of
> > Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh?
>
> Yes. It's not an alias.
class Date is Really::Long::Package::Nam
At 4:01 PM +0100 8/29/02, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 07:52:42AM -0700, Steve Canfield wrote:
>> From: Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >I actually had something a bit more subversive
>> >in mind, where the assignment operator for the
>> >Date class did some magic the same
At 9:24 PM -0400 8/31/02, Ken Fox wrote:
>Damian Conway wrote:
>>No. It will be equivalent to:
>>
>> <[\x0a\x0d...]>
>
>I don't think \n can be a character class because it
>is a two character sequence on some systems. Apoc 5
>said \n will be the same everywhere, so won't it be
>something li
> "DC" == Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DC> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> so what that attribute does is force the hash to keep all pairs as
>> single objects. but what about run time control of it? sometimes you
>> might want a list of pairs to be handled like pairs and other tim
Nicholas Clark wrote:
> So, based on what I remember about variables, would
>
> class Date := Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
>
> express aliasing of classes?
By analogy to:
my $date := $really::long::variable::name::ugh;
yes.
If Larry allows aliasing of classnames at all, that
Trey Harris wrote:
> An alias? Isn't
>
> class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
>
> a new class declaration, declaring 'Date' as a subclass of
> Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh?
Yes. It's not an alias.
> it will have a similar effect to aliasing Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh
Graham Barr wrote:
> I would say it is not always redundant to specify the type on both
> sides
>
> my Dog $dog = Greyhound.new('black');
Sure. But it's the redundant case we were trying to simplify.
>>And, furthermore, that you could easily define special semantics
>>for void-context con
Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> That's pretty close to what I was thinking of, but I don't think the
> constructors actually have to be special. What if "my Date $date;" lets the
> compiler know that $date belongs to the Date class, even if it's undef? If
> that's the case you could call static funct
Uri Guttman wrote:
> so what that attribute does is force the hash to keep all pairs as
> single objects. but what about run time control of it? sometimes you
> might want a list of pairs to be handled like pairs and other times you
> want pairs to be scalars in a hash assignment. is there any wa
Ken Fox wrote:
> The thing I'd like to do right now is turn on :w
> for all rules. A Fortran grammar might want to turn
> on :i for all rules.
>
> Maybe add modifiers to the grammar declaration?
>
> grammar Fortran :i { ... }
Maybe. Or a property:
grammar Fortran is modified(:i) { ...
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 04:40:14AM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> An alias? Isn't
>
> class Date is Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh;
>
> a new class declaration, declaring 'Date' as a subclass of
> Really::Long::Package::Name::Ugh? Because the class body is empty, i.e.
> this line is equivale
In a message dated 1 Sep 2002, Uri Guttman writes:
> > "DW" == David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> DW> On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 05:30 AM, Damian Conway wrote:
> >> Sure. But the right solution is to permanently eliminate the
> >> sesquipedalian
> >> name (so you don
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 01:52:18PM +, Damian Conway wrote:
> I'd suggest that redundancy in syntax is often a good thing and
> that there's nothing actually wrong with:
>
> my Date $date = Date.new('June 25, 2002');
I would say it is not always redundant to specify the type on both
sid
22 matches
Mail list logo
