Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 12:25 (-0700):
> I'm inclining more towards the "only interpolate things that end with
> brackets or parens" rule. That would allow $foo.bar() to interpolate,
> but not $foo.bar.
Anything that is decided by something's end makes things hard to read,
hard to learn and
Two points, if I may jump in here:
(1) If the interpolation rule is to be simple as suggested, why not
impose this rule:
"A character (except for a backslash) is interpreted literally if it
is not preceeded by a backslash."
For example,
"The value is \$foo.bar()." --> "The value is 3."
"T
Uri Guttman writes:
> LW> : so method calls would need the $() or @() wrappers as do all expressions
> LW> : beyond simple scalar value lookup. that means $foo, @foo[0], $foo[0],
> LW> : %foo{'bar'} and $foo{'bar'} all interpolate and only their variants
> LW> : (longer index/key expression
Uri Guttman wrote:
how would you put in the literal string $foo.bar()? escaping the . or
the ( ?
The dollar sign. (Or, if you wanted to interpolate $foo while leaving
the .bar() intact, I would imagine that either \. or \( would suffice.)
--
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:42:48PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
LW> Many expressions are naturally scalar even in list context. Most
LW> operators force scalar context unless you hyper them. In particular,
LW> the new unary operators
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:06:55PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 10:24 (-0700):
: > Interpolates
: > NoYes
: > -----
: > @foo @foo[1]
: > %bar %bar{"a"}
: > $foo.bar $foo.bar()
:
: Oh, please don't do that.
:
: Whatever inte
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:31:08AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I used $d='b' ,and not $d="b" above, just because it should be $d=\"b\"
: yes, I know, perl5 parser makes several passes on quotes, and when it sees
: open quote, it finds closing quote first, then parses all inside.
: AFAIK, pe
Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 10:24 (-0700):
> Interpolates
> NoYes
> -----
> @foo @foo[1]
> %bar %bar{"a"}
> $foo.bar $foo.bar()
Oh, please don't do that.
Whatever interpolation thing is invented, make it SIMPLE. Allowing
@foo[1]
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:21:58 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If {...} supplies list context by default, most
intepolations are either the same length or shorter:
$($foo) {$foo}
@(@foo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$(@foo)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:39:57PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> > > Larry Wall wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > maybe @fo
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:42:48PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: and how do you force scalar context without a scalar() or $() wrapper
: around the expression in {}? hard to say whether scalar or list context
: is more popular and so would get the huffman prize. i liked @() and $()
: for both context
Luke Palmer wrote:
I suppose another good thing is that it makes unneccesary the balanced
brace rule in qq{} that was there in Perl 5: all braces need to be
backwhacked now. However, all braces need to be backwhacked now. Ugh.
I was dreading code-generating heredocs, but with the inclusion of
\qq[
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:36:51PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
: > The equivalent regex syntax isn't interpolating, even to the extent that
: > a bare $foo or @bar is, so this would be sort of a "false cognate"--IMHO
: > another reason not to have interpolating {}.
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
> > >
> > >
> > maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ?
>
> Surely you mean [EMAIL PROTECTE
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >I admit there's a certain interest to Larry's new idea. I've been
> >looking for more distinction between $, @, and % in Perl 6, since they
> >start to become mostly irrelavent. In the new proposal:
> >
> >my @a = (1,2,3,4,5);
> >my
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
: >
: >
: maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ? %foo{..} should also be
: allowed, of course (which
: unfortunately is not a s
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
> >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
> >
> >
> maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ?
Surely you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of 0..Inf
> %foo{..} should also b
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:00:39PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 19:35, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: > The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
: > array object with which you're dealing:
: >
: > my @foo does separator('//') = (1,2,3,4,5);
: > say
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ? %foo{..} should also be
allowed, of course (which
unfortunately is not a short form for 0..Inf). or perhaps, with a slight
analogy with filesystems, @foo[*
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:13:29PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 2004-07-21 at 09:42:44, Larry Wall wrote:
: > Plus it ignores the fact that we've already introduced single character
: > scalar context operators that make it trivial to coerce from list
: > context to scalar. If {...} supplies li
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:35:10PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: This doesn't quite feel right to me. I was really a big fan of the good
: ol' Perl 6 days where you could interpolate as in Perl 5, and method
: calls required parentheses. I understand why Larry wanted to take out
: the parentheses,
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If {...} supplies list context by default, most
> intepolations are either the same length or shorter:
>
> $($foo) {$foo}
> @(@foo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> $(@foo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL
On 2004-07-21 at 09:42:44, Larry Wall wrote:
> Plus it ignores the fact that we've already introduced single character
> scalar context operators that make it trivial to coerce from list
> context to scalar. If {...} supplies list context by default, most
> intepolations are either the same length
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:46AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: some questions:
:
: 1) is "@a[1][2]{'a'}«b»" interpolateable?
Yes.
: and what about "@a[1]('arg')[3]"?
I can argue that both ways, but overall it seems like it won't cause
much of a problem, and keeps () in the same mental cat
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:20:56PM -0400, Damian Conway wrote:
: So what about:
:
: $foo[$i]
: $foo{$k}
:
: ???
Those would work.
: And would slices interpolate?
Yes. Slices are entirely determined by what's in the subscript.
: I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in stri
"Chromatic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Shh, no one's let slip the idea of curried roles yet! I'm not even
> certain A12 mentioned parametric roles, let alone first-class roles.
And with parametric roles, perhaps we also get C roles?
Dave.
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Amen. Please don't steal unnecessary metacharacters in qq()
> strings--although I still think we should keep it, @ causes a lot of
> problems.
I seem to recall an issue, last week, of whether adverbs can be a
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- The Perl 6 Summarizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Okay, so the interview was on Tuesday 13th of July.
>> It went well; I'm going to be a maths teacher.
[...]
> As we all know, time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a
> banana. If you
Luke Palmer wrote:
I admit there's a certain interest to Larry's new idea. I've been
looking for more distinction between $, @, and % in Perl 6, since they
start to become mostly irrelavent. In the new proposal:
my @a = (1,2,3,4,5);
my $a = @a;
say "@a"; # @a
say "$a"; # 1
29 matches
Mail list logo
