Austin Hastings writes:
> If you think about it, what we really ought to do is train ourselves
> to "reverse" the numbers row on our keyboards. If we're doing a good
> job about avoiding magic numbers, then " $ % & ( ) are going
> to be much more frequently used than 2 4 5 7 9 0, so why don't we
>
Juerd wrote:
I think %hash`key makes sense. But I'd like to find out if more people
like this idea.
We already have two hash dereference syntaxes. That's arguably one too
many as it is. Let's fix the deficiencies in the syntax we have, rather
than adding even more syntax with even more deficienci
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:38:34PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > The use of % as a modulo operator is purely a legacy from 'C',
> > where it was a failure: in 'C', the only number you care about
> > for
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> > > > $foo % bar
> > >
> > > " % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
> > >
Austin Hastings writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> > > $foo % bar
> >
> > " % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
> >
> > Typability and readability are both VERY important.
Austin Hastings writes:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Abhijit A. Mahabal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:13 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Array/Hash Slices, multidimensional
> >
> >
> > As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> > $foo % bar
>
> " % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
>
> Typability and readability are both VERY important.
In that case, why not define a Class::H
Ack - well, I was downright antagonistic, so I really earned it.
I can only try to accept criticism as well as the rest of the list has.
Apology accepted of course, and an apology of my own to the list who had to
suffer me and chromatic who didn't take me too seriously ;)
-scott
On 0, chroma
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:38:34PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> The use of % as a modulo operator is purely a legacy from 'C', where it was
> a failure: in 'C', the only number you care about for modulus is some power
> of 2, and you get those using bitwise-and anyway.
I disagree with this comp
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> $foo % bar
" % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
Typability and readability are both VERY important.
Juerd
Thomas A. Boyer skribis 2004-04-15 16:22 (-0600):
> But I really hate the idea of removing `...` and leaving qx/.../. That
> would leave qx// in the unenviable position of being the only
> "quote-like operator" that doesn't have a corresponding quote-like
> syntax.
s, rx, tr
> After all, the o
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthijs van Duin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> >%foo is a hash. When I see %foo%bar, it feels like that should be a hash
> >too. Besides that, $foo%bar looks funny and @[EMAIL PROTECTED] does so even mor
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
%foo is a hash. When I see %foo%bar, it feels like that should be a hash
too. Besides that, $foo%bar looks funny and @[EMAIL PROTECTED] does so even more.
Not to mention @[EMAIL PROTECTED] I like ` because it's a small but
recognisable glyph. (
Luke Palmer wrote:
That said, I have mixed feelings about the idea. I am thoroughly
convinced that ` can leave it's current job. Removing qx// would be
going a leap too far.
But I really hate the idea of removing `...` and leaving qx/.../. That
would leave qx// in the unenviable position of
> -Original Message-
> From: Abhijit A. Mahabal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Array/Hash Slices, multidimensional
>
>
> As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good time to
> ask if the following
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:09 (-0400):
> If we're going to entertain alternatives, why not use % as the hash
> subscriptor?
> To borrow from another thread:
> %foo%monday%food = 10;
> %foo%monday%travel = 100;
> %foo%tuesday%food = 10;
> %foo%tuesday%travel = 150;
There is as fa
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:09 PM
> To: Dave Mitchell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: backticks
>
>
> Dave Mitchell skribis 2004-04-15 21:56 (+0100):
> > If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied consta
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> David Storrs skribis 2004-04-14 22:39 (-0700):
> > Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
> > (This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
>
> That is inconvenient.
Yup.
> > 1) ` looks like it should b
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 13:37, Larry Wall wrote:
> Well, I, for one, think chromatic was right on the money.
No matter how right my thoughts might have been, my tone *was* rude and
that's not right. Apologies to Scott.
-- c
As the hash syntax is being worked out, I thought it'd be a good time to
ask if the following will be supported in some form:
If I have some structure like %foo{"monday"}, %foo{"tuesday"} etc,
I can set their values enmass using:
%foo<> = <>;
What if I had
%foo{"monday"}{"food_ex
Dave Mitchell skribis 2004-04-15 21:56 (+0100):
> If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index hash
> access syntax, is there any reason why we can't use a single quote (')
> rather than backtick ('), akin to the Perl4-ish package separator,
> ie %foo'bar rather than %foo`bar
I found Luke Palmer's Synopsis 3 on perl.com at
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/03/18/synopsis3.html but didn't see it out at
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/synopsis/.
--
Garrett Goebel
IS Development Specialist
ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261
5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.
Mark J. Reed skribis 2004-04-15 16:49 (-0400):
> If I might offer a modest counter-proposal - how about a fallback method
> (the equivalent of Perl5's AUTOLOAD or Ruby's method_missing, however
> that winds up being spelled in Perl6) that would return the value of the
> key equal to the requested m
On 2004-04-15 at 16:49:28, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Not sure that JavaScript is relevant here, since the "equivalent"
> syntax there, ".", is the same as the method call syntax. But see my
> proposal below.
Before the nit-pickers jump in, I was oversimplifying above. The
"method call syntax" in Jav
If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index hash
access syntax, is there any reason why we can't use a single quote (')
rather than backtick ('), akin to the Perl4-ish package separator,
ie %foo'bar rather than %foo`bar?
On the grounds that personally I hate the backtick
Scott> * %hash`s is an example of a small thing that would be easy to implement
Scott> in core but would be used constantly (if JavaScript is any indication,
Scott> every few lines), giving a lot of bang for the buck
Not sure that JavaScript is relevant here, since the "equivalent"
syntax there
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 01:26:47PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
: So, my apologies to who anyone who feels unfairly or excessively criticized,
: except chromatic. There is no forgiveness for someone who seeks out irked people
: with the single goal of further irking them. Since chromatic is so eager
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 03:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Juerd
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: backticks
>
>
> Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
> irrevocably set):
>
It's you.
* My objection to the Java community process applies in _some_ _small_
part to the Perl community process. I present it as a negative ideal
with the implication that it should be avoided.
* My objection to it being rejected out of hand applies not to the Perl community
process no
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:27:12PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hash<> retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to
counter the damage of removal of barewords
Actually, %hash<> will be like p5
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 12:27, Scott Walters wrote:
Without commenting on the rest of the proposal, please allow me to clear
up one point:
> * Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hash<>)
> the proposal is being rejected out of hand
This whole thread *is* public comment.
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hash<> retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to counter the
damage of removal of barewords
* %hash`foo occupies an important nitch, trading features (slice, autovivication)
to optmize for
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-15 14:29 (-0400):
> On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 16:56, Juerd wrote:
> > How many of those backticks
> Note, those weren't backticks, those were programs. There were 123
> PROGRAMS that used backticks or equivalent syntax.
I said backticks, and I meant backticks. I'm not sur
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 13:23, Johan Vromans wrote:
> "Gregor N. Purdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ... that I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my
> > Perl 6 programs with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" instead of
> > "#!/usr/bin/perl",
>
> Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start
"Gregor N. Purdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... that I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my
> Perl 6 programs with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" instead of
> "#!/usr/bin/perl",
Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start all my perl programs with
/usr/bin/perl5. Today, I would be qui
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Personally, I view Perl 6 as such a completely new language (although
still Perlish in spirit, it is very different in other respects), that
I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my Perl 6
programs with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" instead of "#!/usr/bin/perl", just
t
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 21:23, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Lets try that again, since I think you parsed my email in a way I
> didn't intend (and its at least 50% my fault)
Hey! *I* have to step up for 50% of the blame now? Where's my lawyer!
;-)
> In my opinion, starting a script with "#!/usr/bin/per
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-14 16:40 (-0400):
> >From a source tree I work with (which I cannot divulge code from, but I
> think statistics like this are fine):
> $ find . -name \*.pl | wc -l
> 330
> $ find . -name \*.pl -exec grep -hlE 'qx|`|`|readpipe' {} \; | wc -l
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 17:04, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> > `` gets used an awful lot
>
> But that's in Perl 5, which is a glue language.
I'm not sure I fully agree with that. Perl 5 *can* be a glue language,
and so can Perl 6. They are not terribly distinct
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Cantrell writes:
>> A few days ago I briefly discussed with Nicholas Clark (current perl 5.8
>> pumpking) about making perl5 code forward-compatible with perl6. A
>> quick look through the mailing list archives didn't turn up anything
>> obvious, an
David Storrs skribis 2004-04-14 22:39 (-0700):
> Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
> (This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
That is inconvenient.
> 1) ` looks like it should be a bracketing operator
I think you means circumfix/balanced operator.
Chris skribis 2004-04-14 17:07 (-0700):
> Perhaps this is naive, but couldn't something like this be achieved in a
> manner similar to how I just implemented it in Ruby? Surely Perl will have
> similar capabilities to handle unknown methods.
As explained in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, it's not a
questio
42 matches
Mail list logo
