Warning: I just watched The Wizard Of Oz
for the first time tonight.
> $x is yours
>
> tells that $x is aliased to variable in
> some "secret scope symbol table" that
>( the table ) is shared between caller
> and callee
The "secret" place is MyYourca, a Subterranean
island. People think it's an
Me writes:
>
> 4. Autoargs are conceptually simpler than
> shared variables, for both newbies and
> experts. But clearly this is subjective. :>
>
thats exactly the point where I tryed to improve. Think of me as a
newbe ( which I am ) -- If I understand your proposal , I can explain it to
> I like more "shared" instead of "yours"
But that's because that's the way you are
thinking about the problem/solution.
I'm just talking about a very local trick
of having autoargs instead of explicitly
passing args in parens. The fact that this
ends up creating an elegant alternative to
dangero
> you propose a mechanism of passing [vars]
> between desired subroutins by default
> through all the dynamical chain of sub
> calls "connecting them.
There's more, or rather, less to it than that.
The same mechanism also includes a clean way
to pass "it", something that needs to be done.
And a
I think , ( on the second reading of your post ) , that your proposal
of "my $x is yours" is logically very similar to my proposal of "our
$x is shared" but your proposal is cleaner if I understand it as
follows ( although I like more "shared" instead of "yours" for that
purpose ) : instead of ali
If I misunderstood you -- correct me. It seems that all you worry
about is that you want some variable be seen in several subroutines
.. you propose a mechanism of passing them between desired subroutins
by default through all the dynamical chain of sub calls "connecting
them. It seems , on the
Philippe 'BooK' Bruhat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I suppose it's very doable to have a FrenchPerl6 editor/parser/whatever
> that makes most of this transparent, but the thing I like the most about
> programming languages it that their are foreign languages.
Microsoft once made a huge experimen
Simon Cozens:
# $a = 2 | 3;
# print $a;
#
# but here's another way of looking at it. Given that we have a
# junction of two integers, we look at the zeroth bit of the
# junction. If ANY of the zeroth bits in 2 and 3 are set, then
# we set the zeroth bit in the result. If ANY of the firs
Apologies if this has already been covered, but I haven't been able to
keep up to date much recently. It occurs to me that the distinction between
the use of &, | and ^ for bitwise ops and their use for junctions can be
flattened. For instance, consider
$a = 2 | 3;
print $a;
Of course, i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> While no assumption is going unquestioned for Perl 6, I do still
> believe that the decision not to overload + for concatenation is one
> of the few things I did right in Perl 1.
Fair enough. And maybe I'm getting ahead of myself (or behind myself)
anyway
10 matches
Mail list logo
