"Alexey Trofimenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficulties with
> recognizing C<::> as part of C<... ?? ... :: ...> and C<::> as
> "module sigil"? Does it involve some DWIM?
Among other things, the ?? will tip off the parser that it's looking
for an ex
Aaron Sherman writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > $foo??split()::0;
> >
> >Ought to be fine
> >
>
> Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
> backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
>
> $foo??0::split()
>
> ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having
to use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it stands out as much as
it should.
I hate to reply to my own message, but...
How about
$foo??split()!!0;
for a touch of craziness. Or is !! not usable? Actually, just igno
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous. I'd
even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0 or split();
to the troublesome double-usage of C<::>
I think I'd prefer that as well, since it has the advantage of not having to
use the evil shift key. Though i don't think it s
Luke Palmer wrote:
$foo??split()::0;
Ought to be fine
Imagine the shock of the first guy who rezlizes he got the logic
backwards and "bug-fixes" it to:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
I'd even prefer a longhand:
$foo either 0
Dave Whipp wrote:
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new("blah");
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new("blah");
Wow, that's pretty amazing...
There has been a lot of discussion in the other threads lately about
iterators. I was wondering if there will be an easy way to create a
bidirectional iterator? Toy example to show what I'm thinking:
for(1..10) {
next if /7/; # always skip 7
prev if 9 && !rand 3; # occasionally
"Sean O'Rourke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> my $x = (use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class).new("blah");
how about some variation on
my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new("blah");
Dave.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>>the docs in the same file as
Juerd writes:
> Where :: (in a module name) can be used, an operator could have been
> used.
>
> How is $foo??Bar::Baz::Quux parsed?
$foo ?? Bar::Baz::Quux; # error, :: expected
Indeed, this is illegal:
Bar::Baz :: Quux.new;
No whitespace allowed.
> I hope it's an error, although so
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-08-23 23:12 (+0100):
> I doubt that's a problem, as C<::> as part of the ternary operator is
> only going to be found where an operator is expected, and C<::> as part
> of a module name is only going to be found where an identifier is
> expected, so it's a matter of l
Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:51:00 -0400,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
> > > So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> > >
> > > uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
> >
> > Well if the long name is the problem:
> >
> >
Hello,
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
> class that you then instantiate like this:
[ snip ]
> So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
>
> uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
is $foo implicitely declared as our or my (
>OK, there's one non-incremental idea: documentation that you can write
>in one place and display in some completely different order. (Shades of
>literate programming!) And although there are good reasons for keeping
>the docs in the same file as the code, there are equal but opposite
>reason
At Mon, 23 Aug 2004 19:46:34 +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) wrote:
> I also think POD should be overhauled completely. I've been thinking
> about proposing something like:
>
> sub foo (
> Foo::Bar$bar,
> Quux::Xyzzy $xyzzy,
> +$verbose,
> +$foo
> ) des
Aaron Sherman wrote:
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant. It'
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 12:53:04PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
> class that you then instantiate like this:
>
> use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
> our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
>
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:21:02 +0100, Matthew Walton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 19 Aug 2004, at 18:04, Luke Palmer wrote:
[...]
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 : rand $param;
my $num = $param == 0 ?? 0 :: rand $param;
surely?
a little off theme.. I wanna ask, could be there in perl6 any difficul
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 15:19, Paul Seamons wrote:
> > So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> >
> > uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
>
> Well if the long name is the problem:
>
> use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
No, like I said: this is not golf. I'm tryi
On 8/23/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Adams) wrote:
>What if we add C attribute that the execution compiler would
>discard, but POD compilers (and debuggers) could make use of? I
>believe that would even allow a particularly stringent corporate
>policy to create a flavor of 'strict' which required
> So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
>
> uses Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo;
Well if the long name is the problem:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class as Foo;
my Foo $obj .= new;
# OR #
require Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
import Some::Module::That::D
Thalhammer, Jeffrey BGI SF skribis 2004-08-23 12:03 (-0700):
> unsubscribe
It doesn't work that way. If I'm not mistaken, unsubscribing is done by
sending mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Also, you might want to consider using a sane e-mail program and some
training in quoting :)
Juerd
unsubscribe
-Original Message-
From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 12:01 PM
To: Rod Adams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
> sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, and foo it ov
Rod Adams skribis 2004-08-23 13:16 (-0500):
> sub foo :doc("take an Foo::Bar, and foo it over.") (
Anything involving a string is not good for documentation, because in
documenation it must be *easy* to add code examples. Besides that, ("")
would make me want to put it all on one line, and that ma
Juerd wrote:
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
don't think I've ev
David Green skribis 2004-08-23 11:30 (-0600):
> One of the selling features (or one of the features that is always sold)
> of POD is that you can mix it with your code. Except nobody does, at
> least I can't recall that last time I saw a module that did that, and I
> don't think I've ever reall
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote:
>This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a
>common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the
>wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget
/me flings coffee cup
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-08-23 12:53 (-0400):
> use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
> our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
> and I keep thinking that that's too redundant
> (...)
> So, I was wondering about a synonym, like:
> uses Some::Module::That::Def
I was thinking about the case where you use a module, only to define a
class that you then instantiate like this:
use Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class;
our Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class $foo := new;
and I keep thinking that that's too redundant. It's not so much that
Aaron Sherman wrote:
=table C<$_> | C<$x> | Type of Match Implied | Matching Code
=row Any | CodeC<< <$> >> | scalar sub truth | match if
C<$x($_)>
That's (the above comments aside) the same thing, and as I said when
Luke suggested it, it seems fine if that's the way we'd pr
31 matches
Mail list logo
