Larry wrote:
But at the moment I'm thinking there's something wrong about any
approach that requires a special character on the signature side.
I'm starting to think that all the convolving should be specified
on the left. So in this:
for parallel(@x, @y, @z) -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
the sig
Smylers summarized (beautifully, thank-you):
* the "looks like an array" option: [op]
» Seemed a nice idea, but doesn't work with other use of square
brackets.
Could be made to work. Suppose that every operator definition (explicit or
implicit) automagically also defined a variant
Larry wrote:
I've actually got my eye on ≈ (U+2248 ALMOST EQUAL TO) as a
replacement for ~~ someday in the distant future.
I suppose it could be argued that we should use ≅ (U+2245
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL TO) instead. That's what =~ was supposed to
represent, after all...
Yeah, either of those wo
On 04/11/02 17:52 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
> and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
> because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
> being able to see my own Unicode c
Larry Wall:
(B# for @x $B!B(B @y $B!B(B @z -> $x, $y, $z { ... }
(B
(BEven if you decide to use UTF-8 operators (which I am Officially
(BRecommending Against), *please* don't use this one. This shows up as a
(Bbox in the Outlook UTF-8 font.
(B
(B--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(B@r
ralph wrote:
It's clear you could have come up with
something like one of these:
method f ($a, $b) is invoked_by($self)
method f ($a, $b) is invoked_by($self is topic)
method f ($a, $b) is invoked_by($_)
but you didn't. Any idea why not?
Because most methods need some kind of acce
[Note to all: yes, this is me, despite the weirdities of the quoting
and headers. This is how it looks when I using mutt out of the box,
because I haven't yet customized it like I have pine. But I do like
being able to see my own Unicode characters, not to mention everyone
else's. If you don't b
> > (naming) the invocant of a method involves
> > something very like (naming) the topic
>
> Generally, there's no conceptual link...
other than
> The similarity is that both are implicit
> parameters
which was my point.
Almost the entirety of what I see as relevant
in the context of dec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) writes:
Thank you very, very much for this; this is supremely helpful.
> » No character left for eating whitespace.
That's a feature, not a bug! The space-eater alternately worries, confuses
and scares me.
--
I want you to know that I create nice things like thi
The many recent suggestions for denoting vector operators all seem to
have problems, with some having significant impact elsewhere in the
language. After reading a few hundred mails on the subject I'm no
longer sure what I prefer, but thought I'd be in a better position to
have an opinion if I at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> If @a [>*=<] @b; doesn't scan like rats chewing their way into your
> cable, what does?
This is why God gave us functions as well as operators.
--
I _am_ pragmatic. That which works, works, and theory can go screw
itself.
- Linus Torvalds
On 04/11/02 14:09 -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > >
> > > What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed
> > says
> > > my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing hi
--- "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And
> especially for these operators.
Heute vektoren, morgen das welt!
Uniperl, Uniperl uber alles,
Uber alles in der welt!
With hyper-states through choose and true();
Masterfully gol
--- Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> > Yeah, but ActiveState does Perl, and Microsoft owns ActiveState
>
> To what extent are *either* of those statements true? :)
Hmm. Well, last time I checked you could still download a perl binary
from Ac
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 11:58 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
You know, separate streams in a for loop are not going to be that
common in practic, so maybe we should look around a little harder for
a supercomma that isn't a semicolon. Now *that* would be a big step
in reducing ambiguity...
Or mo
Austin Hastings wrote:
The << and >> ... are just as pictographic (or
not) as [ and ].
I'm not particularly fond of << or >> either. ;) Damian just
wrote that he prefers non-alphabetic operators to help
differentiate nouns and verbs. I find it helpful when people
explain their biases like that.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Austin Hastings) writes:
> Yeah, but ActiveState does Perl, and Microsoft owns ActiveState
To what extent are *either* of those statements true? :)
--
All the good ones are taken.
--- Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> >
> > What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed
> says
> > my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing high-bit characters
> as
> > US-ASCII. Several people the other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damian Conway) writes:
> > Or something similar '>>*'<<, [>*<], etc...
>
> Much as I hate the notion of di- and trigraphs, this is a possibility.
I do like this too, because it reminds me of C trigraphs, which had precisely
the same purpose - allow people with old-fashioned sub
Austin Hastings wrote in perl.perl6.language :
>
> What we've got is an encoding problem at the MUA level. Mark Reed says
> my mailer (Yahoo!) tagged a message containing high-bit characters as
> US-ASCII. Several people the other day reported on the differences in
> UTF8 vs. Latin-1 handling amon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Fox) writes:
> The question is whether we want a pictographic language.
So far we've managed to avoid turning Perl into APL. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Although that was some time ago... :)
--
The FSF is not overly concerned about security. -
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 11:17:32PM -0600, Me wrote:
>
> I started with a simple thought:
>
> is given($foo)
>
> seems to jar with
>
> given $foo { ... }
>
> One pulls in the topic from outside and
> calls it $foo, the other does the reverse --
> it pulls in $foo from the outside and ma
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 12:26:56PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> In short:
>
> 1- ? and ? are really useful in my context.
> 2- I can make my work environment generate them in one (modified)
> keystroke.
> 3- I can make my home environment do likewise.
> 4- The "ascii-only" version isn't faster
There is a (partial) book-style chapter describing Perl6 values,
variables, and primitive/promoted types at:
http://cog.cognitivity.com/perl6/val.html
The entire thing is one page, for easy printing. It works out to about
15-20 pages, depending on your printer. There is *much* more coming
s
I'm having trouble this is even being considered. At all. And especially for
these operators...
> So, yeah, include trigraph sequences if it will make happy the people
> on the list who can't be bothered to read the documentation for their
> own keyboard IO system.
>
> But don't expect the rest
--- Brian Ingerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, ebcdic *does* have the cent sign!
And the "not" sign. Damian may force us to abandon ASCII entirely...
=Austin
__
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://
--- Me <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > people on the list who can't be bothered to read
> > the documentation for their own keyboard IO system.
>
> Most of this discussion seems to focus on keyboarding.
> But that's of little consequence. This will always be
> spotted before it does much harm and
On 04/11/02 12:12 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > If you want "trigraph" support, you'll have to put
> >
> > use encoding 'ugly-american';
> >
> > at the top of your files. ;-) ;-) ;-)
> >
> > Otherwise, it'll be one-character ?fancyops? all the way.
>
> Mmm, I view one-character Unicode
> people on the list who can't be bothered to read
> the documentation for their own keyboard IO system.
Most of this discussion seems to focus on keyboarding.
But that's of little consequence. This will always be
spotted before it does much harm and will affect just
one person and their software
Garrett Goebel wrote:
Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or trigraph
alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode?
Allow both >>*<< and »*«?
I'd really prefer we didn't. I'd much rather keep << and >> for other
things.
Or something similar '>>*'<<, [>*<], etc..
--- Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> The question is not about being ISO-phobic or pro-English. **
The two gripes I've heard have been:
1- It's hard to type.
2- I don't know how to type it on platform X.
With combo gripe "It'll be hard to remember how to type it
Ken Fox wrote:
I know I'm just another sample point in a sea of samples, but
my embedded symbol parser seems optimized for alphabetic symbols.
The cool non-alphabetic Unicode symbols are beautiful to look at,
but they don't help me read or write faster.
Once again: we're only talking about « an
> After all, there's gotta be some advantage to
> being the Fearless Leader...
>
> Larry
Thousands will cry for the blood of the Perl 6
design team. As Leader, you can draw their ire.
Because you are Fearless, you won't mind...
--
ralph
Austin Hastings wrote:
At this point, Meestaire ISO-phobic Amairecain Programmaire, you have
achieved keyboard parity with the average Swiss six-year-old child.
The question is not about being ISO-phobic or pro-English. **
The question is whether we want a pictographic language. I like
the siz
On 2002-11-04 at 12:26:56, Austin Hastings wrote:
> 1- ? and ? are really useful in my context.
Okay. Now can you get your mailer to send them properly? :)
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know where to correct you first... <:)
Is that a dunce-hat? Is there an ISO version I could use instead? :->
> I'll start by saying your variables are on the wrong side of the
> pointy sub. Also, presuming you switched the order, that C
> sho
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED], UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR.
wrote:
> Mmm, I view one-character Unicode operators as more of an escape
> hatch
> for the future, not as something to be made mandatory. But then,
> I'm one of those ugly Americans.
EBCDIC didn't support brackets, originally,
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 12:09:12 -0800 (PST)
> From: Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Something from [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the relative freque
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:27:16AM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Matthew Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > > Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > > >
> > > > So let me make my original question a
Something from [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the relative frequency made me
wonder:
What's the "order of evaluation" or "nestedness" for separate streams
in a for loop?
That is, can I meaningfully say:
for my $i; $j -> 0 .. @array.length - 1; $i + 1 .. @array.length
{
..
}
And get the equivalent of
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:19:55AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> UTF-8 «op» representations have the advantage of trivially not
> conflicting with _any_ existing operators, and being visually distinct
> from all of them. There may be a few other things in
> easy-to-find-and-type Latin1, lik
Ed Peschko asked:
ps - as an aside, are the apocalypses going to be backdated as changes to the
design come up?
Yes.
Or are the apocalypses just a first draft for more enduring
documentation?
Yes.
;-)
Damian
> I'm probably opening up a whole new can of worms here, but if we said
> that the following were both vector operators:
>
> ^ == intersection operator
> v == union operator
>
> then these could have potentially useful meanings on their *own* as set
> operators, as well as modifying oth
--- Matthew Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> > >
> > > So let me make my original question a little more
> > > general: are Perl 6 source files encoded in Latin-1,
> >
On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:41:44AM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Matthew Zimmerman wrote in perl.perl6.language :
> >
> > So let me make my original question a little more
> > general: are Perl 6 source files encoded in Latin-1,
> > UTF-8, or will Perl 6 provide some sort of translation
> >
On Monday, November 4, 2002, at 08:55 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
# Can't we have our cake and eat it too? Give ASCII digraph or
# trigraph alternatives for the incoming tide of Perl6 Unicode?
The Unicode version is more typing than the non-Unicode version, so
what's the advantage? It's prettier?
W
This > ¶ < is a pilchrow, which shows up for me as one of those
paragraph-sign looking backwards P's with two vertical bars. Sorry if
it doesn't come out for you.
--- Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Unicode version is more typing than the non-Unicode version, so
> what's the advantage
Garrett Goebel:
# Ken Fox wrote:
# > Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
# > seriously out of hand. That 5 char ASCII sequence is *identically*
# > encoded when read by the human eye. Humans can probably type the 5
# > char sequence faster too. How does Unicode win
Ken Fox wrote:
> Damian Conway wrote:
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> >> That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be >>*<<.
> >
> > A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the
> > penalty for not upgrading to something that can handle
> > unicode.
>
> Unless this is subtle humor, th
Damian Conway wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
That suggests to me that the circumlocution could be >>*<<.
A five character multiple symbol??? I guess that's the penalty for not
upgrading to something that can handle unicode.
Unless this is subtle humor, the Huffman encoding idea is getting
seriously
50 matches
Mail list logo
