On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:03:03PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> If you insist on using A and Z, at least make them \A and \Z, to give a
> stronger visual cue that something different is happening.
Some other ideas ...
^A..^Z Too confusing with $^A and $^Z ?
^A..^? Well, if control
> If you insist on using A and Z, at least make them \A and \Z, to give a
> stronger visual cue that something different is happening.
I think I'd prefer alpha and omega.
Or maybe turn my previous suggestion around and make first and last
special constants. Then say:
@a[ first .. last but 1 ]
Larry Wall wrote:
I'm still thinking A is the first one and Z is the last one. Someone
talk me out of it quick.
I had thought about A and Z before my previous post. I dismissed it for
two reasons:
1) Using Alphas as an index for something that should be numeric can be
very confusing. Especially
Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 06:31:49PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : I wonder if this notion of contextualizing a method's signature could
> : be generalized... I could see a case for treating most methods as if
> : the expressions in each parameter were being evaluated within th
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:19:11PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: > I think we just need something really short and unconfusing for the
: > commonest cases,
:
:@a[ 42 ; -1 but last ]
:
: That reads pretty well, no?
:
: Maybe the other end isn't quite as good:
:
: @a[ 1 but first .. -2 but
> I think we just need something really short and unconfusing for the
> commonest cases,
@a[ 42 ; -1 but last ]
That reads pretty well, no?
Maybe the other end isn't quite as good:
@a[ 1 but first .. -2 but last ]
Hmm. Should "-1 but last" or "0 but last" be the last element?
~ John Wil
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 06:31:49PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: I wonder if this notion of contextualizing a method's signature could be
: generalized... I could see a case for treating most methods as if the
: expressions in each parameter were being evaluated within the caller's
: class:
:
:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 07:42:53PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
(B: What jumps to my mind is that inside an array subscript could be
(B: (sub)?context of it's own. Then one could do:
(B:
(B: @ints[.beg .. .end ; .beg + 3 .. .end];
(B
(BAwful dotty...
(B
(B: Where the .beg and .end would relate
Larry Wall wrote:
> Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the minus notation to count from
> the end. We probably need to come up with some other notation for the
> beginning and end indexes. But it'd be nice if that were a little
> shorter than:
>
> @ints.shape[0].beg
> @ints.shape[0
John Williams writes:
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> > A multidimensional array is indexed by a semicolon list, which is really
> > a list of lists in disguise. Each sublist is a slice of one particular
> > dimension. So
> >
> > @array[0..10; 42; @x]
> >
> > is really short for
> >
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: What happens when the Pascal programmer declares
:
: my int @ints is shape(-10..10);
:
: Does it blow up?
No.
: If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1 or the last element?
The element with ind
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> A multidimensional array is indexed by a semicolon list, which is really
> a list of lists in disguise. Each sublist is a slice of one particular
> dimension. So
>
> @array[0..10; 42; @x]
>
> is really short for
>
> @array.postcircumfix:[]( <== [0..
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > The argument to a shape specification is a semicolon list, just like
: > the inside of a multidimensional subscript. Ranges are also allowed,
: > so you can pretend you're programming in F
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> The argument to a shape specification is a semicolon list, just like
> the inside of a multidimensional subscript. Ranges are also allowed,
> so you can pretend you're programming in Fortran, or awk:
>
> my int @ints is shape(1..4;1..2); # two dimension
On 9/3/04 6:45 PM, Damian Conway wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>>> I don't see how we could prevent someone from clobbering the global
>>> definitions of PRE and POST to be no-ops if they wanted to. Seems to
>>> me that the whole point of putting the program in charge of its own
>>> compilation is
John Siracusa wrote:
I don't see how we could prevent someone from clobbering the global
definitions of PRE and POST to be no-ops if they wanted to. Seems to
me that the whole point of putting the program in charge of its own
compilation is to let it be in charge of its own compilation, n'est pa?
On 9/3/04 6:03 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:35:56PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> : Synopsis 4 says:
> :
> : "PRE and POST must return boolean values that are evaluated according to the
> : usual Design by Contract rules."
> :
> : Do "the usual Design by Contract rules" incl
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 04:35:56PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
: Synopsis 4 says:
:
: "PRE and POST must return boolean values that are evaluated according to the
: usual Design by Contract rules."
:
: Do "the usual Design by Contract rules" include the ability to "turn off"
: (i.e. remove from p
Synopsis 4 says:
"PRE and POST must return boolean values that are evaluated according to the
usual Design by Contract rules."
Do "the usual Design by Contract rules" include the ability to "turn off"
(i.e. remove from program flow) PRE and POST blocks for performance reasons
in production, or is
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:41:05AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
: On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:47:40PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: >
: > =head1 Compact structs
: >
: > A class whose attributes are all low-level types can behave as
: > a struct.
:
: "all low-level types" or "all low-level *sized* types"?
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 12:25:37PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: If "my int @foo" makes a compact array of ints, is there a way to make a
: compact array of Dog? (Does it even make sense?) And if so, does it look
: like "my Dog @foo" or must there be some other syntax to declare it?
It's jus
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 09:29:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : If so, and
> : based on the parameterization above, I assume that there will also be
> : the appropriate pointer arithmetic such that if $fido is declared as a
> : ref[Dog] and pointed at an array of Dogs, then $fido++ will move to the
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 10:00:24AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:47:40PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > my ref[Array] @ragged2d;
:
: What is a "ref" type exactly? Is it like a pointer in C?
It's exactly like a reference in Perl 5. Declaring a compact array of
"
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Peter Haworth wrote:
: n-ary zip() is simple enough, but the infix ? makes zipping more than
: two lists somewhat entertaining. Without iterators doesn't work well:
:
: @a ? @b produces (@a[0],@b[0],@a[1],@b[1],...)
:
: which is what we wanted, but
:
:
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Maybe it's just my BASIC upbringing, but "shape" doesn't seem like the
right word. Words like "dimension" and "cardinal" fit better in my
head, but I'd want them shorter and "dim" and "card" don't quite work
either ;-)
But "shape" makes me want to do something like this:
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:47:40PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> my ref[Array] @ragged2d;
What is a "ref" type exactly? Is it like a pointer in C? If so, and
based on the parameterization above, I assume that there will also be
the appropriate pointer arithmetic such that if $fido is declared as
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:45:37 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> To process two arrays in parallel, use either the zip function:
>
> for zip(@a,@b) -> $a, $b { print "[$a, $b]\n" }
>
> or the "zipper" operator to interleave them:
>
> for @a ¥ @b ¥ @c -> $a, $b, $c { print "[$a, $b, $c]\n" }
n-ary z
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 8:41 PM
> To: Perl6
> Subject: Re: Reverse .. operator
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 08:34:22PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
> : Is there similar shorthand to set @foo = (5, 3, 3, 2, 1) ? I
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:41:05 +0100, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there some syntax to express if the struct is packed or
> needs alignment? (Perhaps that would be needed per element.)
Why am I suddenly thinking about unions ?
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> > >Hmm. Gotta decided if S$foo.bar() is too ugly to live though...
> >
> > It is.
>
> Agreed.
Though IMHO Perl has a long history of syntax allowances too ugly to live,
and yet, as long as they are not *
On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 04:47:40PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> =head1 Compact structs
>
> A class whose attributes are all low-level types can behave as
> a struct.
"all low-level types" or "all low-level *sized* types"?
(I'm wondering about char arrays, string and pointers.)
I presume a char[
31 matches
Mail list logo
