Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> >Arguably, the :shiftÂvalue syntax makes it easier to quote both
> >sides of a pair, so perhaps there's a little less need for an
> >autoquoting =>. But I think that generating non-quoted keys for
> >subscripting happens a lot more often than non-quoted keys for pairs,
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:00:44 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:41:41AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later
are
: gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
: %hashÂkey
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 18:25:40 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:12:54AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: perl is filled with functions which do different things in different
: contexts. It seems that in perl6 with plenty of "new contexts", it will
: be even mor
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 05:12:54AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: perl is filled with functions which do different things in different
: contexts. It seems that in perl6 with plenty of "new contexts", it will
: be even more stimuls for that habit. So real question is:
: in expression C< a
Except people don't actually read the documentation, and when they
do read it, they don't understand it, and when they do understand it,
they'll write it wrong anyway out of habit. You might as well write
your warning in Russian for all the good it'll do. :-)
So we'll force people who want any lo
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 11:13:29 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: > if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
: > instead?
:
: A late thought, but sin
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:58:49AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
: >--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >>If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
: >>declare that there can
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 03:41:41AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: There was some talks about hash keys autoquoting and barewords.. later are
: gone and former is disambigued by forcing to write %hash{'key'} or
: %hash«key» ( as opposite to %hash{key} which is now %hash{key()} )..
: right?.
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 13:19:46 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
declare that there can't be. You can always say:
do { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
(It's still the ca
On Sat, Jul 10, 2004 at 04:35:35AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:14:32 -0400, Joe Gottman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
: > Will given be a statement modifier also? This would be useful for
: >quick
: >topicalization:
: >
: > say "$_ => %hash{$_}" given get_random
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 20:14:32 -0400, Joe Gottman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: if not C<,> then what?
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 2:33 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: if not C<,> then what?
>
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : Will there be a statement modifier version of C?
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 07:56:41AM +0200, Ph. Marek wrote:
: Hello everybody,
:
: I'm about to learn myself perl6 (after using perl5 for some time).
I'm also trying to learn perl6 after using perl5 for some time. :-)
: One of my first questions deals with regexes.
:
:
: I'd like to parse data
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
> : > declare that there can't be.
> :
> : Be as unreasonable as you wa
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: > : Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
: > :
: > : { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
: >
: > If there
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : Can there reasonably be block-postfix modifiers?
> :
> : { print; next; } if|when /stgh/;
>
> If there reasonably can be block modifiers, I will unreasonably
> declare that there can
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 11:23:09AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: Will there be a statement modifier version of C?
:
: print, next when /stgh/;
Yes, though in this case it's indistinguishable from C, since //
defaults to $_ anyway. However, these are different:
print, next when 3;
p
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
: Would that not be:-
:
: say "Basename is $(str.subst(rx|.*/|, ''))"
:
: I thought when you were interpolating method calls you had to put brackets
: $(object.meth), so that you could still write things like:-
:
: $fh = o
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
> : On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
> :
> : > if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something
> new
> : > instead?
> :
> : A late thought, but since I am one o
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:39:56AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
:
: > if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
: > instead?
:
: A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
:
: print,next if /stgh/;
:
Michele Dondi wrote:
A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
print,next if /stgh/;
Ouch. I hadn't thought of that. I'm a big fan of litering loops with
discard(),next if dontCareBecause(); # it don't matter here
type constructs. I was going to suggest
pri
"Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hans Ginzel writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:16PM +1000, Gautam Gopalakrishnan wrote:
> > > about string subscripting. Since $a[0] cannot be mistaken for array
subscripting
> > > anymore, could this now be used to peep into scalars? Looks easier
t
Michele Dondi skribis 2004-07-09 11:39 (+0200):
> > - then as a method of print makes sense
> then as a method of everything
How does then as a method make sense? A method has to be somehow related
to the object. Don't use methods for syntactic sugar, Perl 6 has plenty
of ways to add sugar without
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Juerd wrote:
> > wonder wether something vaguely like the following example could (be made
> > to) work:
> > print.then{next} if /stgh/;
>
> Ehm. It can probably be made to work with sufficient black magic, but I
> fail to see how:
>
> - then as a method of print makes sens
Michele Dondi skribis 2004-07-09 10:39 (+0200):
> kinda syntax too, and I, for one, will regret not having it anymore, I
> wonder wether something vaguely like the following example could (be made
> to) work:
> print.then{next} if /stgh/;
Ehm. It can probably be made to work with sufficient blac
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
> if we really about to lose C-style comma, would we have something new
> instead?
A late thought, but since I am one of thow whose' keen on the
print,next if /stgh/;
kinda syntax too, and I, for one, will regret not having it anymore, I
wonder wet
26 matches
Mail list logo
