On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 08:07, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [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
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
>
> So then, I think if there's just some clarification about how one-tuples
> are formed, I think everything I wrote in my earlier mail can DWIM
> correctly. There seems to be no magic here, quotations from LoTR to the
> contrary. :-)
Your post was very h
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> This is because push is
> almost certainly defined as:
>
> sub push(@target, *@list) { ... }
That should be
sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
but otherwise I think that's right.
Now, implementation in Perl 6 (though I assume it's
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:18, Smylers wrote:
> $num = @massive;
>
> C<$num> becomes a reference to C<@massive>, but in a numeric context it
> will evaluate to the number of elements in that array.
>
But in most cases, you would never do this. You would do something like
my int $num =
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> Grrr... I want that to work, really I do, but since, as Larry has
> pointed out, there's no functional difference between an array ref and
> an array in Perl 6, they would be the same. This is because push is
> almost certainly defined as:
>
Replying to myself to clear a few things up...
In a message dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Trey Harris writes:
> 2. Scalar assignment.
>
> my $a;# 1.
> $a = X;
>
> my $a;# 2.
> $a = X;
>
> my $a;# 3.
> ($a) = X;
>
> my($a) = X; # 4.
>
> my($a)
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 15:48, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
> > > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one.
> >
> > Wha
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 16:58, Trey Harris wrote:
> 4. Numeric value.
>
> The progression spoken about at great length previously:
>
> +()# == 0
> +(0) # == WHAT? 0? 1?
> +(0,1) # == 2
> +(0,1,2) # == 3
> +(0,1,2,3) # == 4
> +(0,...,n) # == n + 1
>
>
Two weeks ago, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> So would it be possible for s/// to have the same return values as m//
> in perl6?
Since no one authoritative has responded to this, I will just add my
support that it seems like a reasonable request.
s/// currently "returns the number of substitutions mad
In a message dated Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer writes:
> Y'all have it backwards.
>
> [1,*[2,[3,4,5]],6] # [1,2,[3,4,5],6]
> [1,*[2,*[3,4,5]],6] # [1,2,3,4,5,6]
>
> Flat flattens outwards, not inwards.
Ah. *slaps head* of course. That makes much more sense
On 24 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > push @a: [1,2,3,4];
> >
> > pushes an array ref onto @a.
> >
> > push @a: *[1,2,3,4];
> >
> > pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []).
>
> Remind me which language this is suppos
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> > for (1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
> >
> > and
> >
> > for 1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
> >
> > Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In
> > Hell Does T
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> for (1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
>
> and
>
> for 1,("a","b","c"),3 { ... }
>
> Now that I've ventured away from DWIMs and more into WIHDTEMs (What In
> Hell Does This Expression Mean), is the above equivalent to
>
> for 1,qw(a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trey Harris) writes:
> May I suggest that we start with some DWIMmy examples
Sam sat on the ground and put his head in his hands. 'I wish I had
never come here, and I don't want to see no more magic,' he said, and
fell silent.
--
I hooked up my accelerator pedal in my car to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> push @a: [1,2,3,4];
>
> pushes an array ref onto @a.
>
> push @a: *[1,2,3,4];
>
> pushes 1, 2, 3, and 4 onto @a (as it would without the * and []).
Remind me which language this is supposed to be, again?
--
"Life sucks, but it's better th
I think this discussion has gotten out of hand, and I hope that Larry,
Damian or Allison will grace us with a resolution soon. :-)
May I suggest that we start with some DWIMmy examples and try to arrive at
a mechanism that will make them all DWIM? Here are my opinions, feel free
to shoot them do
On 23 Sep 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
> > need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one.
>
> What context does "push" impute on its operands?
>
> If
> p
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 06:38, Smylers wrote:
> So if the difference between lists with parens and anon arrays with
> square brackets is going away, it may make sense to standardize on the
> latter rather than the former. In other words, lists now use square
> brackets.
>
> That frees up parens f
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:37:59AM -0500, Me wrote:
> In several forms of courier, and some other text fonts
> I view code in, I find it hard to visually distinguish the
> pattern element:
I'd suggest a clearer fixed-width font than Courier. Perhaps Monaco, Neep
or, if you can find them, Mishaw
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Damian Conway wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
> > print "yes" if "helo" =~ /hel { .pos-- } lo/;
>
> This definitely has to work. But remember the call to C is on
> the "match object" (i.e. $0), not the string.
>
> Actually, I would expect that *any* pattern
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> >> Happy birthday to me!
> >
> >
> > Congratulations.
> >
> >> ... by my turning 35 on the 15th
> >
> >
> > 44 on 16th - yes Sept.
>
> Congrats to you too. So, should I s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> Since we now have an explicit flattening operator (unary *), there's no
> need to differentiate between a "real" list and a reference to one.
What context does "push" impute on its operands?
If
push @a, [1,2,3,4];
and
push @a, 1,2,3,4;
are goi
> If you can't distinguish braces and parentheses (or quotes and
> backquotes in some other fonts), you are in deep trouble in many
> languages including perl5 BTW.
I've seldom found myself mistaking a brace for a paren
or a quote for a backquote when using Perl 5. So maybe
you are right.
But ma
On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:33:31 -0600 (MDT), Luke Palmer said:
> You know, the idea that square brackets are the only things that can
> make lists is starting to really appeal to me. Similar for squiggles
> and hashes. I don't know how many times in my early Perl5 days I did
> this:
> Since we no
On (22/09/02 10:37), Me wrote:
> From: "Me" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: <( )> vs <{ }>
> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 10:37:59 -0500
>
> In several forms of courier, and some other text fonts
> I view code in, I find it hard to visually distinguish the
> pattern e
25 matches
Mail list logo
