On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 02:21:58PM -0800, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is something along the lines of the applied research vs basic
> > research question. What Larry is doing pretty much amounts to basic
> > research that will help all of these
> "MJR" == Mark J Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MJR> On 2003-01-21 at 11:09:21, Thom Boyer wrote:
>> One of the most... er, *interesting*, dodges I've seen in this area
>> is the one used by Squeak (a Smalltalk variant). Squeak spells
>> assignment with an underscore ("_"), but the
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 02:38 PM, Buddha Buck wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm,
in either direction:
$in -> lex -> parse -> codify -> optimize -> $out; # L2R
$out <- optimize <- codify <- parse <- lex <- $in;
Smylers wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm, in
either direction:
$in -> lex -> parse -> codify -> optimize -> $out; # L2R
$out <- optimize <- codify <- parse <- lex <- $in; # R2L
It's clear, from looking at either of
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 01:31 PM, Smylers wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
it's that I _dislike_ the perl5 rule, ...
Oh. That's "dislike" rather than "disliked"? My question was
predicated on your declaration "I emphatically withdraw my objection",
which I took to mean that your knowl
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:21:08PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
> > Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I'll be pretty interested to discover what cause is deemed
> more
> > > deserving than Larry, Perl 6 or Parrot. The P still stands for
> Perl,
> >
--- Thom Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Smylers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > And an alternative
> > spelling for the assignment operator[*0] doesn't strike me as
> something
> > Perl is really missing:
> >
> > $msg <~ 'Hello there';
> > $msg = 'Hello there';
>
>
> I still re
This is a valuable discussion, and I hope people will take this up on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] as well.
Thanks,
John A
see me fulminate at http://www.jzip.org/
Thom Boyer wrote:
> The primary advantage, to my mind, in using C, is that it
> eliminates the dangling-else ambiguity -- so splitting it in half
> removes almost ALL the value of even having an C keyword.
Surely it's the compulsory braces, even with a single statement, which
eliminates that prob
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 12:30 PM, Smylers wrote:
>
> > It was only on reading that (and discovering that you hadn't
> > previously known about the 'optional comma with closure argument'
> > rule) that I understood why you had previously been so in favour of
> >
Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 12:26 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Though I'm sure Damian will be long eventually to correct my
>> syntax. I'm getting this weird feeling of deja vu though...
>
> When I come home from work each day, I can see my dog eag
I just finished skimming this write-up, located at
http://paulgraham.com/arcll1.html
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
-r
--
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; phone: +1 650-873-7
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 12:26 PM, Piers Cawley wrote:
Though I'm sure Damian will be long eventually to correct my
syntax. I'm getting this weird feeling of deja vu though...
When I come home from work each day, I can see my dog eagerly waiting
at the window, just black snout and fren
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 21 January 2003 07:16 am, Simon Wistow wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:14:29PM +0100, K Stol said:
> > LUA seems to be a very nice language, but how is this language to be
> > used? Is it in combination with a C program one would write?
David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:21:08PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> > Well, I'll be pretty interested to discover what cause is deemed more
>> > deserving than Larry, Perl 6 or Parrot. The P still stands for Perl,
>> > right?
>>
Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:27:56PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> > What benefit does C<< <~ >> bring to the language?
>>
>> Again, it provides not just a "null operator" between to calls, but
>> rather a rewrite of method call syntax. So:
>>
>> map {..
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 04:21:08PM -0800, Damian Conway wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Well, I'll be pretty interested to discover what cause is deemed more
> > deserving than Larry, Perl 6 or Parrot. The P still stands for Perl,
> > right?
>
> True. But I suspect that TPF's position is that
Thom Boyer wrote:
> Smylers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> > And an alternative spelling for the assignment operator[*0] doesn't
> > strike me as something Perl is really missing:
> >
> > $msg <~ 'Hello there';
> > $msg = 'Hello there';
>
> I still remember the first time I saw a com
On 2003-01-21 at 11:09:21, Thom Boyer wrote:
> One of the most... er, *interesting*, dodges I've seen in this area is the
> one used by Squeak (a Smalltalk variant). Squeak spells assignment with an
> underscore ("_"), but the Squeak system *draws* it as a left-pointing arrow.
There's a history beh
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> The tokeniser could send two tokens "else" and "if" whenever it
> recognizes the keyword "elsif" -- so this isn't a problem.
The primary advantage, to my mind, in using C, is that it eliminates
the dangling-else ambiguity -- so splitting it
Smylers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> And an alternative
> spelling for the assignment operator[*0] doesn't strike me as something
> Perl is really missing:
>
> $msg <~ 'Hello there';
> $msg = 'Hello there';
I still remember the first time I saw a computer program, before I had
learne
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:20:04AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 02:04 AM, Graham Barr wrote:
> > If the function form of map/grep were to be removed, which has been
> > suggested,
> > and the <~ form maps to methods. How would you go about defining a
> > ut
On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 04:33 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
But both the OO and pipeline syntaxes do more to point out the noun,
verb, and adjective of the operation.
Adverb. The {...} part is an adverb, not an adjective. Sorry there.
MikeL
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 02:04 AM, Graham Barr wrote:
If the function form of map/grep were to be removed, which has been
suggested,
and the <~ form maps to methods. How would you go about defining a
utility
module similar to List::Util that uses the same syntax as map/grep but
without
Damian Conway writes:
> Buddha Buck wrote:
> >
> > Perl 5 allows you to do:
> >
> > $object->meth1->meth2->meth3; # Perl5 chained method, L2R
> >
> > Perl 6 will also allow you to do:
> >
> > $data ~> sub1 ~> sub2 ~> sub3;# Perl6 chained subs, L2R
> >
> > Perl 5 allows
> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:04:58 +
> From: Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If the function form of map/grep were to be removed, which has been
> suggested, and the <~ form maps to methods. How would you go about
> defining a utility module similar to List::Util that uses the same
> syntax
"Joseph F. Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> >
> >The tokeniser could send two tokens "else" and "if" whenever it
> >recognizes the keyword "elsif" -- so this isn't a problem.
> >
>
> I think the point of having
On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 07:27:56PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > What benefit does C<< <~ >> bring to the language?
>
> Again, it provides not just a "null operator" between to calls, but
> rather a rewrite of method call syntax. So:
>
> map {...} <~ grep {...} <~ @boing;
>
> is not:
>
> m
28 matches
Mail list logo
