According to John Williams:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > (7,) is an abomination. It's one of python's misfeatures that annoys
> > me the most.
>
> Of course, _requiring_ the comma is bad [...]
Well, I don't know about Jonathan, but requiring the comma is exactly
what Py
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:39:29PM -0500, Me wrote:
> So, how about something like:
>
> : # lock in current atom, ie as now
> :] # lock in surrounding group, currently ::
> :> # lock in surrounding rule, currently :::
> :/ # lock in top level r
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean? Something
> along these lines:
>
> (7) # list context
> (3+4) # numeric context (there's a numeric operator in there)
> (3+4,5) # list context (comma trumps the n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> How do you do C< ($a + $b) * $c > if parentheses are forbidden for
> mathematical expressions?
I thought that , was actually the list constructor, much as => is the
pair constructor. (And hence
a => 1, b => 2
would be a list of pairs.)
Of co
And the one best reason I forgot to include:
How do you do C< ($a + $b) * $c > if parentheses are forbidden for
mathematical expressions?
--
Markus Laire 'malaire' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 10:52 AM -0500 9/21/02, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>So, you expect 7.pow(2) to work? I'd expect it to be an error (this
>isn't python after all).
Sure, why not? I mean, we already use methods on integers all the
time--what do you thin 12.5 is anyway, other than calling the 5
method on the c
On 22 Sep 2002 at 21:06, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> > While and don't follow same syntax, I don't really see
> > any better solutions.
>
> is sufficiently "hard" that it musn't be confused with the
> colon series.
Yes, I didn't think that enough.
:,::,:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Laire) writes:
> While and don't follow same syntax, I don't really see
> any better solutions.
is sufficiently "hard" that it musn't be confused with the
colon series.
> I wonder if might be usefull instead of with proper
> syntax-highlighting.
Yeah. :: sho
> Backtracking syntax includes:
>
> :, ::, :::, ,
>
> 1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
> progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
> newbies don't say to themselves, "now just how wide a
> scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?".
What
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Me) writes:
> > 1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
> > progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
> > newbies don't say to themselves, "now just how wide a
> > scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?".
>
> Why would newbies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Me) writes:
> 1. It's nice how the ':', '::', and ':::' progression indicates
> progressively wider scope. But I would be surprised if
> newbies don't say to themselves, "now just how wide a
> scope am I backtracking when there's three colons?".
Why would newbies be writing thr
Backtracking syntax includes:
:, ::, :::, ,
I like the way the ':' looks in patterns. But I noticed I have
several niggles about a number of other aspects of the
above syntax. All the niggles are minor, individually, but
they added up to enough that I thought I'd see what the
bikeshed might
In several forms of courier, and some other text fonts
I view code in, I find it hard to visually distinguish the
pattern element:
<( ... )>
from:
<{ ... }>
What about replacing the former syntax with:
?
--
ralph
Chip Salzenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to David Whipp:
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
> > () == 0 # true?
>
> Hell, yes, why didn't I think of that? This is exactly the same
> problem that afflicts Python's tuple syntax!
v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
> Does that matter? This example is fairly contrived, and anybody
> actually concerned about this can always use:
>
> $num = @massive.length;
I'd be in favour of forcing people to say this if they want the length
of the array.
But then, it might be that wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) writes:
> Why can't perl be smart enough to figure out what we mean?
We're talking about lists, the second most fundamental data structure
in the language.
If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much
doomed from the outset.
--
16 matches
Mail list logo
