Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 03:03:38PM -0800, Jon Ericson wrote:
> : while(<>) {...}
> You left out the most important phrase:
>
> "or whatever we decide is the correctest idiom."
I saw that, but I didn't know what to make of it. The Perl 5 idiom is
p
Larry Wall writes:
> Or maybe we just stick with what we already allow:
>
> my $name = 'add';
> my $code = q[
> sub \qq[$name] ($left, $right) {
> return $left + $right;
>}
> ];
>
> After all, that's why we put \q interpolation into '' in the first place.
Ahh
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:55:32AM +, Matthew Walton wrote:
: >I neglected to mention that the smart quoter should also recognize
: >pair notation and handle it.
:
: I've been trying to get my brain round that, but I can't quite figure
: out what you mean. Pair notation is, as I understand it
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 08:56:49 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or maybe we just stick with what we already allow:
>
> my $name = 'add';
> my $code = q[
> sub \qq[$name] ($left, $right) {
> return $left + $right;
> }
> ];
>
> After all, that's w
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 11:41:37AM -0500, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: So... maybe we can pass a parameter saying what we want to use to interpolate?
:
: my $name = 'add';
: my $code = q:c<«>[
: sub «$name» ($left, $right) {
: return $left + $right;
:}
: ];
: # prints "
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 00:22:25 +, Jonathan Paton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> > qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
> > those which are undefined are preserved literally.
>
> Interesting idea except for the flaw.
I think we almost have something like
Jim,
> qq:i {} is just like qq{} except that when it interpolates variables,
> those which are undefined are preserved literally.
I think surprise might be a problem. E.g.
my $index = 0;
eval qq:i {
my @array = A .. Z;
sub example {
for my $index (0 .. $#array) {
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 07:41:18 GMT, Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Siracusa writes:
>
> > Call me crazy, but at this point I'm prone to stick with what I've done in
> > Perl 5 for years:
> >
> > $var{'key1'}{'key2'}[3]{'key3'}
>
> In which case do that, since it'll still work in Perl
John Macdonald wrote:
The problem with "interpolate if you can or leave it alone for
later" is that when later comes around you're in a quandry.
Is the string "$var" that is in the final result there because
it was "$var" in the original and couldn't be interpolated,
or was it a $foo that had its v
Matthew Walton writes:
> Pair notation is, as I understand it, when you get
>
> key => value
That can now also be written as:
:key
or, where value is 1, simply as:
:key
I suspect it was this form that Larry was referring to.
Smylers
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-12-01 10:11 (+):
> Well that depends... are you intending to write programs, or drive the
> world insane?
Yes.
Juerd
Juerd wrote:
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-12-01 9:55 (+):
Yes, that would be fun... almost worth throwing out a compiler warning
for that, especially if we've still got use warnings. Something like
Warning: «{ }» creates empty list
It should generate a warning similar to the warning of inte
Matthew Walton skribis 2004-12-01 9:55 (+):
> Yes, that would be fun... almost worth throwing out a compiler warning
> for that, especially if we've still got use warnings. Something like
>
> Warning: «{ }» creates empty list
It should generate a warning similar to the warning of inte
Larry Wall wrote:
I thought so.
: I don't think I've ever used a hash slice in my life. Is there something
: wrong with me?
No, a lot of people are naturally monoindexous.
I like that word.
: >* The :w splitting happens after interpolation. So
: >
: > « foo $bar @baz »
: >
: > can end up
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Smylers) wrote:
>David Green writes:
>> I'm not even sure what those double-quotation marks are doing --
[...]
>Look back at how Larry defined the guillemets: [...]
>So the double-quotes in there are "shell-like", though I guess if you
>don't ha
David Green writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
>
> >* The :w splitting happens after interpolation. So
> >« foo $bar @baz »
> >can end up with lots of words, while
> >« foo "$bar" "@baz" »
> > is guaranteed to end up wit
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon) wrote:
>I'm going to pull a Larry and think out
>loud for a minute here. Note that I speak authoritatively here,
Noted. Or not. =)
>Treating it like an array is wrong.
>On the other hand, what if a filehandle *is* an
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
>Here's the proposal.
>First the bad news:
>* We accept that the C<< < >> operator requires whitespace
>around it, and be prepared to be burned in effigy occasionally.
I wouldn't go that far, although when I inevitably
Larry Wall writes:
> The basic problem with «...» is that most of its uses were turning out
> to be more useful that the corresponding <...>. ... and I think I'm
> ready to propose a Great Angle Bracket Renaming.
I very much like your proposal. (Though whether you were actually ready
to propose
19 matches
Mail list logo
