On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: So many operators...
:
: It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
: least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
:
: It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
: too
So many operators...
It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
too easy to read if we, for instance, used the Kanji charac
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
: one-arg universal method?
I didn't give the other half of the answer. A method is a term,
not an operator. It's the . in front of it that's the operator...
It's just that, in indi
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
: one-arg universal method?
The Perl 5 definition of named unary op is an operator with the
precedence of UNIOP in perly.c.
: E.g. why are "temp" and "let" both ops but
: "my, our, h
Brent Dax wrote:
Larry Wall:
# We're obviously missing the "force to string context, negate"
# operator. :-)
Which would create a superposition of all strings besides the given one,
right? (Oh crap, I think I gave Damian an idea... :^) )
The C<~none> operator covers that quite nicely:
$not_
Larry Wall:
# We're obviously missing the "force to string context, negate"
# operator. :-)
Which would create a superposition of all strings besides the given one,
right? (Oh crap, I think I gave Damian an idea... :^) )
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding reg
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > : ? - force to bool context
> > : ! - force to bool context, negate
> > : + - force to numeric context
> > : - - force to numeric context, negate
> > : ~
Excellent (and valuble) work Michael. Thank-you.
My turn for a few comments:
& | ! - superpositional
all any one (none?)
Although there certainly are good uses for a C superpositional:
push @list, $newval
if $newval eq none(@list);
print "In range\n"
Here's try #2. Things that are not true operators or have other
caveats are marked, where known. LMKA.
unary (prefix) operators:
\ - reference to
* - list flattening
? - force to bool context
! - force to bool context, negate
not - force to bool context, negate
From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : ? - force to bool context
> : ! - force to bool context, negate
> : + - force to numeric context
> : - - force to numeric context, negate
> : ~ - force to string context
>
> We're obviously missing the "force to string co
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:00:59PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : binary operators:
> : + -*/%** x~<< >>
> : += -= *= /= %= **= x= ~= <<= >>=
>
> We could distinguish an xx operator (along with xx=)
On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 02:38 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
In the manner of Accent, I'd like @ reserved as the RPC operator.
The Role Playing Character operator? Hmm, that has possibilities.
What would this statement do?
+--+
|..@...|
|d.|
|..|
+--+
MikeL
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 'kay. As an aside, I've always itched for a qlike op that was
> matrix-like, e.g.
>
> my Pet @list = qm{
> fido dog collie
> fluffy cat siamese
> };
That should be qo, and possibly @qo or qoo -- it quotes an
On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 01:00 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Not clear how many of these are just universal or near-universal
methods.
Which would make some of them list-op variants, if we follow Perl 5
rules...
What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
one-arg univer
In the interest of email sanity, please make sure that neither Larry's
preferred : nor the more-common > are valid at statement start...
I'd hate to stumble across
: -> - like 'sub' ;
And run the risk of it compiling both as a quote and not.
=Austin
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> &&||!!//- boolean operations
> &&= ||= !!= //=
> and orxor
Hmmm, given Larry's comments just now about about similar things not
looking similar, I really think | vs ! is a mistake. Fr
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Since it's been a full month since the start of the monster "operator
: precedence" thread, here's what I've been able to gather as the
: revised, new-and-improved list of Perl6 operators, IF we did all the
: xor/cat/regex-related changes as discusse
Since it's been a full month since the start of the monster "operator
precedence" thread, here's what I've been able to gather as the
revised, new-and-improved list of Perl6 operators, IF we did all the
xor/cat/regex-related changes as discussed as of this moment. ;-) I
think this list is ac
On 25 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >But think of what macros in general provide:
: >
: > * Multi-platform compatability
: > * Easier maintenance
: * Creating/Embedding custom languages. aka - adapting the
Angel Faus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Speaking about macros, I renember reading somewhere something about
> Scheme hygenic macros, but i didn't really understood it.
>
> Do they solve the maintenance problems of Lisp macros? Would they be
> applicable to perl?
Scheme hygenic macros do a lot
Speaking about macros, I renember reading somewhere something about
Scheme hygenic macros, but i didn't really understood it.
Do they solve the maintenance problems of Lisp macros? Would they be
applicable to perl?
Thanks for any tips,
-angel
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you define "powerful" as "can do more things," then of course not.
> Lisp is implemented in C, and C's macros are certainly not essential
[aside: most "major" common lisp implementations (cmucl, sbcl,
openmcl, mcl, allegro and lispworks) are all native
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:58, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > From: Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [...]
> > Do you think that Lisp macros make the language more powerful than
> > others (eg Perl)? I mean, do they really give a competitive
> > advantage, or are they being overra
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
> It's possible the syntax for substitution should be wrapped around the syntax
> for matching, whatever that turns out to be.
That strikes me as promising...
Going back to Perl5 for a moment, we have
substr($str,$start,$len) = $newstr
why not simply ext
24 matches
Mail list logo
