=head1 TITLE
Square brackets are the only list constructor
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2002
Number: 362 (?)
Version: 1
=head1 ABSTRACT
This RFC responds to the fury on perl6-language about the redundancy of
parentheses and brackets with res
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Lambert wrote:
> >
> > $a = (1, 2, 3); # Same as Perl 5's $a = [1,2,3];
>
> $a = (1) should then do $a = [1], according to the above.
>
> This implies that:
>
> ($a) = (1) implies that $a is [1], something I don't particularly agree
> with.
You may be missing the chang
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff
> > $b = 7, 6, 5
> > @b = 7, 6, 5
> >
> > Again, both create identical objects, under different
> > interfaces. But now we have a problem with +$b: what should
> > this mean? To be consistant with +$a (above), I would
> > suggest that it simply returns the sum of
Folks,
Larry is mostly out of touch this week, so working ourselves into a
fury over a potential design issue is probably a bit
counterproductive.
Perhaps someone can put together a statement of the problem and post
it, and we can leave the discussion for a bit, both to give larry
time to ge
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Mike Lambert writes:
> Consider:
> $a = (1);
> and
> ($a) = (1);
Yes? They both do the same thing--set $a to 1. It looks like the bottom
one is a list assigned to a list, but that might be optimized out, as it
doesn't matter.
> > 5. Assignment to arrays an
> 2. Scalar assignment.
>
> my $a;# 1.
> $a = X;
>
> my $a;# 3.
> ($a) = X;
>
> These should all do the same thing, regardless of X.
Consider:
$a = (1);
and
($a) = (1);
> 5. Assignment to arrays and lists.
>
> $a = (1, 2, 3); # Same as Perl 5's $a = [1,2,3];
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 14:47, David Whipp wrote:
> It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between
> a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want
After the first couple of messages, that was really no longer *my*
concern, but I can't speak for others. My concern was mostly that
par
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:47:16AM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between
> a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want
>
> $a = 7
>
> to DWIM, whether I mean a list, or a scalar. Seems to me that
> the best way to solve a dichotomy is to d
It seems that the fundamental problem is the dichotomy between
a scalar, and a list of 1 elem. Thus, we want
$a = 7
to DWIM, whether I mean a list, or a scalar. Seems to me that
the best way to solve a dichotomy is to declare it to not to
be one: a scalar *IS* a list of one element. The only t
> > In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes:
>
> > > then what about
> > >
> > >$a = (1)
> > >
> > > ? And if someone says that I have to write:
> > >
> > >$a = (1,)
> > >
> > > then I am going on the warpath. That Way Lay Python.
You _can_ write that, but you don't
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:14:10PM -0400, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
> > >
> > > sub
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
> >
> > sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; }
> > sub foo2(){ my $foo
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:14:04AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Again, we're wading into the waters of over-simplification. Let's try:
>
> sub foo1(){ my @foo=(1,2,3); return @foo; }
> sub foo2(){ my $foo = [1,2,3]; return $foo; }
> sub foo3(*@list) { print @list.length,
In a message dated 24 Sep 2002, Aaron Sherman writes:
> That doesn't really work. Because now you introduce the case where:
>
> $x = (1,2,3);
> @y = (1,2,3);
> $z = [1,2,3];
> push @a, $x, @y, $z, (1,2,3), [1,2,3];
>
> Behaves in ways that will take hours to explain to newb
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 11:07, Trey Harris wrote:
> In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes:
> > then what about
> >
> >$a = (1)
> >
> > ? And if someone says that I have to write:
> >
> >$a = (1,)
> >
> > then I am going on the warpath. That Way Lay Python.
I would *
At 11:07 AM -0400 9/24/02, Trey Harris wrote:
>
>*shrug* Regardless of whether we like it, what Larry said is true unless
>and until he invokes Rule 2. And unless he invokes Rule 2,
>C is equivalent to C<[1,2,3]>.
Then perhaps, rather than fretting over the unpleasant consequences
of the curren
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 10:27, Peter Haworth wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> > > sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
> >
> > Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array
> > flattening, thus
>
In a message dated Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Chip Salzenberg writes:
> According to Trey Harris:
> > According to Larry,
> > $a = (1,2,3);
> > is equivalent to
> > $a = [1,2,3];
> > because they're both equivalent to
> > $a = scalar(1,2,3)
>
> But that's the bit we're arguing about. If you allow
>
According to Trey Harris:
> According to Larry,
> $a = (1,2,3);
> is equivalent to
> $a = [1,2,3];
> because they're both equivalent to
> $a = scalar(1,2,3)
But that's the bit we're arguing about. If you allow
$a = (1,2)
then what about
$a = (1)
? And if someone says that I have
On 24 Sep 2002 05:21:37 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> > sub push(@target is rw, *@list);
>
> Well, yes, but that wasn't the point. The C<*@list> will force array
> flattening, thus
>
> push @a, [1,2,3], 4;
>
> will (according to Larry's
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 11:30:57AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> At any rate, I do wish we'd stop kidding ourselves that Perl 6 is at all
> going to be "cleaned up" or "regular"; I bet it'll end up with more edge
> cases and special exceptions than Perl 5.
Simon, Perl 6 *will* be more "regular" as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> > If we have to resort to much magic to get these right, we're pretty much
> > doomed from the outset.
>
> You have that upside-down. Because this is so fundamental, it's worth a
> great deal of magic to make it "seem right" in as many contexts as
> pos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> say that array refs behave the same as arrays in every way *except* as
> pertains to list flattening, and in that case, explicit flattening is
> required, otherwise the ref is kept in the flattened array.
Another blow to regularity. :(
--
buf[
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 01:46, Trey Harris wrote:
> 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);
Well, yes, but that wa
24 matches
Mail list logo
