On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
>
> > You're assuming that C in a ternary operator. It
> > could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
> > that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. C).
>
On 24 Aug 2004, at 22:14, Aaron Sherman wrote:
You don't HAVE to use auto-topicalization. You CAN always write it
long-hand if you find that confusing:
for @words -> $word {
given ($chars($word) > 70) -> $toolong {
say abbreviate($word) ?? $word;
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 15:55, Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > Yep, and since ~~ auto-topicalizes its lhs for its rhs, your binary ??
> > is all you need. I wish I'd seen your message before I sent my recent
> > one, as I would have just started from there.
>
Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
> > overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
>
> Not necessarily. You're assuming tha
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:50, Dave Whipp wrote:
> You're assuming that C in a ternary operator. It
> could be a binary operator, defined as {eval $RHS if $LHS; return $LHS}. For
> that interpretation, one might choose a different name (e.g. C).
> We could actually define ?? as a binary operator in
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 08:24, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> $foo => 'a' or 'b'
I was too focused on the idea of C/C<::> as a pair-like construct,
and I missed what should have been obvious:
a ?? b :: c
IS
given a { when true { b } default { c } }
Which S4 tells us is:
a -
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
> > I'd even prefer a longhand:
> >
> > $foo either 0 or split();
>
> The overloading of
Luke Palmer wrote:
Aaron Sherman writes:
$foo??0::split()
ouch!
Yeah, seriously. I mean, what a subtle bug! It would take him hours to
figure out went wrong!
Sarcasm is an ugly thing.
One thing that I just thought of that could be intersting:
$foo => 'a' or 'b'
My thought was that l
David Green wrote:
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 fli
* Juerd ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040823 19:46]:
> 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
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always thought that particular bit of sugar was rather dangerous.
> I'd even prefer a longhand:
>
> $foo either 0 or split();
The overloading of 'or' there is (IMHO) far more dangerous than the
overloading of '::' being discussed in this thread.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> > my $x = Some::Module::That::Defines::A::Class.AUTOLOAD.new("blah");
>
> Wow, that's pretty amazing... uh... I think I'd just prefer to do it
> the old fashioned way. If my suggestion was really that horrific, I
> withdraw the question.
These days, to
12 matches
Mail list logo
