Juerd writes:
> For oneliners, I think I'd appreciate using -o for that. The module
> itself can be Perl::OneLiner. Things the module could do:
>
> * disable the default strict
The C<-e> flag indicating the one-liner disables C anyway.
Smylers
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> But we have no need in qx either. Why to introduce (or REintroduce)
> something if we have something similar already?
>
> $captured = system :capture q/cmd../;
Or even calling the function C, as per Larry's April mail that Luke
referenced.
> I haven't that lon
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 09:33:49 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I notice that in Perl6 thoose funny  and  could be much more common
: than other paired brackets. And some people likes how they look, but
: nobody likes
Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > but talking about oneliners and short shell-like scripts, where `` is
> > pretty useful.. hm.. things good for oneliners are rarely as good for
> > larger programs, and vice versa. Of course, Perl5 proves opposite, but
> > Perl6 tends to be a little more verbose
Perl 6 Summary for 2004-11-22 through 2004-11-29
All~
Rather than try to do something witty about the strange music I am
listening to, or the stuffed animals who are assisting me. I will start
this summary off with an entirely self-serving request. A while
ago I saw the quote "
P.P.P.S. If answer on my "why?" would be "just because!" I would take it
silently.
yes, answer was as I predicted above. I promised..
..but:
As far as I understood, arrays and hashes, and references them are much
more similar in Perl6 than it was in Perl5.
F.e. we have @a and $a = [EMAIL PROTE
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:36:14 +0100, James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
Likewise a qw/a b/ is short for
q:w/a b/
qw:q/a b/
$fromvar = 'foo bar';
qw:qq/a "something with spaces" b $fromvar/
# ?? -- slightly OT, but is that a, '"something', w
Alexey Trofimenko skribis 2004-11-30 3:17 (+0300):
> but talking about oneliners and short shell-like scripts, where `` is
> pretty useful.. hm.. things good for oneliners are rarely as good for
> larger programs, and vice versa. Of course, Perl5 proves opposite, but
> Perl6 tends to be a li
Matthew Walton wrote:
James Mastros wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:58AM +0300, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: ah, I forget, how could I do qx'echo $VAR' in Perl6? something like
: qx:noparse 'echo $VAR' ?
I think we need two more adverbs that add the special features of qx
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
>
> > It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6.
>
> It says that, but after saying "Leaving aside the use of C<``> as a
> term ...". And that use of backticks is what this subthread appears to
> be about. As I interpret i
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20040420175551.GA16162%40wall.org&rnum=1clarify
> >
> > It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6. That's (the) one
> > key of the keyboard that we're leaving to user-defin
Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20040420175551.GA16162%40wall.org&rnum=1clarify
>
> It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6. That's (the) one
> key of the keyboard that we're leaving to user-definition.
It says that, but
Jon Ericson writes:
> Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > James Mastros wrote:
> >> Larry Wall wrote:
> >>> Well, yes, but sometimes the weights change over time, so it doesn't
> >>> hurt (much) to reevaluate occasionally. But in this case, I think I
> >>> still prefer to attach the
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 05:29, Michele Dondi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, David Ross wrote:
>
> > I have been studying PERL 5 core and modules to identify options and
> > issues for meta-architectures and automated code generation. PERL 6
> > documents and discussion provide insight essential to
Matthew Walton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> James Mastros wrote:
>> Larry Wall wrote:
>>> Well, yes, but sometimes the weights change over time, so it doesn't
>>> hurt (much) to reevaluate occasionally. But in this case, I think I
>>> still prefer to attach the "exotic" characters to the exotic
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:56:59AM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: What if instead, we add a different adverb to q// and qq//? something
: like :h. That way people can mix and match all the quoting option they
: want, and we remove some annoying requirements about when you can and
: cannot have /<<\s+
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Frankly, as the only person who has managed to get together a "guessing
lexer" that is sufficiently accurate to be something other than useless,
Hm. I must confess that I don't consider Text::Balanced's
C subroutine to be entirely useless. And presumably neither
do the th
Rod Adams skribis 2004-11-29 1:56 (-0600):
> Are they really common enough to merit a "two char, absolutely no
> whitespace after it" lexical? Especially one that looks a lot like the
> left bitshift operator, as well as an ASCII version of a Unicode quoting
> and splitting character?
> What if
It's quite a disappointment in some ways, but we've lived with it in
Perl 5, and I'm sure we can live with it in Perl 6.
And I still think Perl 6 will have fewer cases in which it's completely
impossible for not-Perl to parse it. Unfortunately, fewer still implies
some, and some is still a pro
19 matches
Mail list logo
