Yes, you heard right. A cookbook describing stuff that hasn't yet been
designed, for a language that doesn't yet exist. Having flashbacks to
your college years, anyone?
The purpose of the Cookbook is to foster discussion on perl6 OO
concepts, and to start documenting the decisions that are
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> I've always wondered what the ! postfix operator means. The mathematicians
> think they know. :-)
The Ruby folks think they know. They're method name conventions.
>From "Programming Ruby"
Methods that act as queries are often
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> Uh-oh: my life is gonna suck. I've spent days hunting obscure bugs
> that were caused by a single mistyped character. Now I'll be spending
> days hunting obscure bugs that were caused by a single *pixel*.
>
I've already been the
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Brad Hughes wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: [...]
: > Maybe we should ... to mean "and so on forever":
: >
: > @a[0...; 0...:10; 0...:100]
: >
: > Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
: > might be handier in real life.
:
: No more yada-yada-y
On Wednesday, October 9, 2002, at 10:35 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> Except then we couldn't use it to mean what Ruby means by it, which
> might be handier in real life. (It means to exclude the endpoint,
> so 0...4 is the same as 0..3. But then, that's kind of odd too.)
Uh-oh: my life is gonna s
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:35:32AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> : On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : Would that mean that three other special cases of postfix .. might exist?
> :
> : 0..; # useful for return 0..;
>
> I bet
In a message dated Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Larry Wall writes:
> If only we had Unicode editors, we could just force everyone to use
> the infinity symbol where they mean it. It seems a shame to make a
> special case of the .. operator. Maybe we should ... to mean "and so
> on forever":
>
> @a[0...;
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
: > and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
: > term (which is how we recogni
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, John Williams wrote:
: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > : but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
: > : put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
: > : else.
: >
: > Could perhaps unify with C<..>.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> : but I think the latter is unnatural enough that it deserves parens, so I'd
> : put 'but' above comma (and probably '='), but below just about everything
> : else.
>
> Could perhaps unify with C<..>. Wouldn't hurt for it to be
> non-associative like C<..>
On 2002-10-08 at 17:15:06, Larry Wall wrote:
> Seriously, () is just a special token. We could easily have used a
> special token like NULLLIST instead. What does INTERCAL use?
Well, INTERCAL doesn't have lists per se, but it does have arrays, whose
size is set by assignment: the lvalue is the n
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 06:07:09PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> There's this basic rule that says you can't have an operator for both binary
> and postfix, since it's expecting an operator in either case, rather than a
> term (which is how we recognize prefix operators). The one exception I can
> t
Maybe of interest to some, probably of no interest to most, but this is the
first time I've noticed the use of a perl6 regexp flag in the wild. Or
however "wild" #london.pm on IRC passes for:
Trelane: not really - I think I spent longer debugger
+WWW::UsePerl::Journal than I meant to
/ger/ging
13 matches
Mail list logo
