Matthijs van Duin wrote:
my $x = 1;# initialization
$x = 1;# assignment
Woo, C++ :-)
Low blow, Matthijs! ;-)
Not *exactly* the same, but the same line of thought, yes.
Considering 'our' merely declares a lexical alias to a package var, how
do we initialize package vars?
--- Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However I still think we're probably multiplying entities
> unnecessarily.
A beautiful if somewhat understated reference to Occam's Razor.
While the synoptic synthesis of the writing of William of Occam is
often translated into English as "One should
> > sub myprint(+$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
> As a side note... that sig will not do the behavior you've described.
> You instead want this:
> > sub myprint([EMAIL PROTECTED], +$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT) {...}
> The named parameter +$file has to go beh
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Seriously, tho, I'm not sure I understand the constantness part.
sub foo($x = 1) {...} # A6 syntax
sub foo(?$x = 1) {...}
I read the above as saying $x is indeed constant, but if it's not
explicitly placed by the caller, we're going to pretend the caller
pas
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 02:19 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
And I don't think that allowing 20 different types of assignment in
the parameter list of a subroutine actually helps at all. Especially
since the vast majority of parameters in Perl 6 will be constant.
Twenty types of _initialization
Mark Biggar wrote:
sub myprint(+$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
Should be:
sub myprint([EMAIL PROTECTED], +$file is IO:File is rw ::= $*OUT) {...}
although maybe what I really want is := instead.
I suspect so. The binding of a parameter is most definitely run-ti
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Mark Biggar wrote:
sub myprint(+$file is IO:File is rw ::= IO:STDOUT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) {...}
open f ">/a/d/v/f/r";
myprint file => f, "Hello World!\n"; # goes to f
myprint "Differnet World!\n";# goes to IO:STDOUT
As a side note... that sig will n
Damian Conway wrote:
I don't see how ::= (compile-time-bind) can be used as the
initialize-if-non-existent operator.
I mean, it happens in the wrong phase (compile-time, not run-time) and
it does the wrong thing (binding, not assignment).
The only case I can think of where is might be useful is
of crap known as XSL. An XML-based derivative that performs XML
transformations, allowing/using embedded P6 regexs, closures, etc., and
able to more easily translate XML <==> P6 data.
I'm still quite XML-phobic, but I see the need for strong XML support
in Perl 6. However, I'd like to work with
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 11:27:55PM +0100, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:19:42AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> > my $x = 1;# initialization
> >$x = 1;# assignment
>
> Woo, C++ :-)
>
> Considering 'our' merely declares a lexical alias to a package var,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:19:42AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> We then simply define the "=" in:
>
> sub foo ( ?$bar = $baz ) {...}
>
> to be an initialization (since it's on the declaration of the
> parameter). If the parameter has already be bound to some other
> container, then that ot
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:19:42AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
my $x = 1;# initialization
$x = 1;# assignment
Woo, C++ :-)
Considering 'our' merely declares a lexical alias to a package var, how
do we initialize package vars?
--
Matthijs van Duin -- May the Forth b
I don't see how ::= (compile-time-bind) can be used as the
initialize-if-non-existent operator.
I mean, it happens in the wrong phase (compile-time, not run-time) and it does
the wrong thing (binding, not assignment).
For example:
sub foo {
state $count ::= 0;# $count b
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 01:47:32PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >> But it is certainly possible to extend the initialization capabilities
> >> to be m
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:08 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
But it is certainly possible to extend the initialization capabilities
to be more robust:
sub foo($x = 'blah') {...} # wrong: use one of the below
sub
At 12:47 PM -0800 3/25/03, Paul wrote:
> >> |==[*]|
>> Sarcasmeter?
>
>lol -- I think my BS-o-meter just redlined, too
Heh. Sorry 'bout that. Bring it to OSCON and I'll get it fixed. :)
lol -- when/where is that? (Seems all I do here is
On Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 11:02 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
Imho P6ML is a bad idea, if it means what I think it means (creating a
parser for quasi-MLs). People will laugh a
--- Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:19:30PM -0800, Paul wrote:
> > Is there a page up anywhere that summarizes the latest
> > prognostications?
>
> Mike Lazzaro had compiled the state-of-the-ops for perl6, but I don't
> know if it's anywhere other than
> >> |==[*]|
> >> Sarcasmeter?
> >
> >lol -- I think my BS-o-meter just redlined, too
>
> Heh. Sorry 'bout that. Bring it to OSCON and I'll get it fixed. :)
lol -- when/where is that? (Seems all I do here is ask dumb questions).
*sigh*
>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 12:19:30PM -0800, Paul wrote:
> Is there a page up anywhere that summarizes the latest
> prognostications?
Mike Lazzaro had compiled the state-of-the-ops for perl6, but I don't
know if it's anywhere other than in the archives for this list. Just
go to google groups and sea
At 11:52 AM -0800 3/25/03, Paul wrote:
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
> >discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
>
> I,
(Note forwarded to the list as penance for my silliness. :)
> > > sub foo($x .= "foo") {...} # Append "foo" to whatever $x given
> > > sub foo($x ~= "foo") {...} # smart-test $x against "foo"
>
> Well, last time I looked (granted, it could've changed numerous times
> since then) ~ was the stri
--- Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > > >So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
> > > >discussion/agreement of what it would
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > >So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
> > >discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
> >
> > I, for one, think it's a great i
--- Robin Berjon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it is creating a /toolset/ to make recuperating data from a
> quasi-XML (aka
> tag soup) then it is an interesting area of research. I can think of
> two approaches:
>
>- have a parametrisable XML grammar. By default it would really
> parse XM
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
> >discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
>
> I, for one, think it's a great idea, and the thought of altering perl
>
> 6's grammar to m
At 10:44 AM -0800 3/25/03, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
I, for one, think it's a great idea, and the thought of altering perl
6's grammar to make it a functional language is sheer genius, making
the conc
> sub foo($x ~= "foo") {...} # Append "foo" to whatever $x given
Oops. :)
That should be
> sub foo($x .= "foo") {...} # Append "foo" to whatever $x given
> sub foo($x ~= "foo") {...} # smart-test $x against "foo"
I assume the second would provide a boolean response.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:42:39AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> But it is certainly possible to extend the initialization capabilities
> to be more robust:
>
> sub foo($x = 'blah') {...} # wrong: use one of the below
> sub foo($x ::= 'blah') {...} # same as C<$x is default('blah
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
Imho P6ML is a bad idea, if it means what I think it means (creating a parser
for quasi-MLs). People will laugh at our folly, and rightly so for trying to be
able to parse al
So, is anyone working on a P6ML, and/or is there any
discussion/agreement of what it would entail?
MikeL
Getting back to A6, a few thoughts. From the 'Re: is static?' thread:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 08:30 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
Well, people *will* write
state $foo = 0;
The question is what that should mean, and which major set of people
we want to give the minor surprise to, and how m
suppose I want this behaviour :
sub new_counter($start=0) {
my $cnt = $start;
my sub incr {
++$cnt;
};
my sub decr {
--$cnt;
};
return sub (str $how="incr")
{
give
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030323
Assuming I can tear myself away from stroking the cat who has just
magically appeared on my chest and is even now trying to wipe his dags
on my nose, welcome one and all to another Perl 6 summary, which should
go a lot quicker now that
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:43:00 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Damian wrote:
>> caller :{.label eq 'MAINLOOP"};
> Errr what is that odd and disturbing notation? I don't recall ever seeing
> that.
It's vaguely sinister. Must be the moustache operator.
-- c
35 matches
Mail list logo
