Re: Multimethod/multisub thought...

2003-01-23 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 7:30 AM + 1/24/03, Piers Cawley wrote: In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code as possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch mechanism would allow one to write: sub gmttime ( $time = time() ) is in_scalar_context { strftime( $perls_def

Multimethod/multisub thought...

2003-01-23 Thread Piers Cawley
In my quest to eliminate as many explicit conditionals from my code as possible, I found myself wondering if Perl 6's multidispatch mechanism would allow one to write: sub gmttime ( $time = time() ) is in_scalar_context { strftime( $perls_default_time_format, $time ); } sub gmttime

RE: A proposal for separable verbs.

2003-01-23 Thread Austin Hastings
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Except that none of the other ones exist in Perl 6. :^) > Thinking about this some more, and considering the desirability of lazy evaluation, I think incremental execution might be the right way. (Al

Re: Why C needs work

2003-01-23 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:02 AM -0800 1/23/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote: Yes, no doubt so, and good point. I think I should make it clear that my speculation on somehow unifying C and C is _not_ an attempt to gut A4, because I like A4 quite a lot. I'm just thinking out loud about how we could _extend_ A4 in one par

Re: Why C needs work

2003-01-23 Thread fearcadi
Michael Lazzaro writes: > > Think, think. What do these things have in common? > > # known from A4 > > for @a, sub ($x) {...} # primitive spelling > for @a -> $x {...} # pointy sub, looks great > > map {...} @a # old-style map syntax >

RE: Array/Colon question

2003-01-23 Thread Brent Dax
Michael Lazzaro: # Here's something that I'm still confused about. # # We have: # # print STDOUT : $a; Presumably you forgot the $ on that STDOUT. # as indirect object syntax. The colon means "STDOUT is the # object we're # operating on." It works everywhere. We also have # # for

Re: Why C needs work

2003-01-23 Thread Michael Lazzaro
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 07:40 PM, Thomas A. Boyer wrote: I have a strong suspicion that this possibility was carefully considered by {LW, DC, ...} (that's set notation, not a code block :) before the Apocalypse 4 "pointy sub" syntax (and the for-loop syntax using it) was promulgate

Array/Colon question

2003-01-23 Thread Michael Lazzaro
Here's something that I'm still confused about. We have: print STDOUT : $a; as indirect object syntax. The colon means "STDOUT is the object we're operating on." It works everywhere. We also have for 1..10 : 2 {...} in which the colon indicates a step operation. The above will iter

Re: Why C needs work (was Re: L2R/R2L syntax)

2003-01-23 Thread Michael Lazzaro
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Kwindla Hultman Kramer wrote: Michael Lazzaro writes: 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

Re: Why C needs work (was Re: L2R/R2L syntax)

2003-01-23 Thread arcadi shehter
Thomas A. Boyer writes: > Michael Lazzaro wrote: > > *Now*, what to do about the fantastic magic that pointy-sub provides? > > The _spectacular_ win would be if we could just recognize an optional > > parameter list as part of a block. > > > > map @a : ($a,$b) {...} # params + closure