On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:43:55PM -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
: On Wed, Apr 06, 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
: > I think it's time to break out
: > the colon again and use something like:
: >
: > &infix:<+>:(Complex, Complex);
: >
: > or
: >
: > &foo:(Str,Int)
: >
: > for ordinary fun
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:37, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> : Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-06 11:10 (-0700):
> : > $$ref follow the ref list to the actual object.
> :
> : my $foo;
> : my $bar = \$foo;
> : my $quux = \$bar;
> : my $xyz
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-06 11:37 (-0700):
> : my $foo;
> : my $bar = \$foo;
> : my $quux = \$bar;
> : my $xyzzy = \$quux;
> : How then, with only $xyzzy, do you get $bar? $$xyzzy would follow until
> : $foo. I don't like this at all.
> You can't get at $bar anyway. You can only
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
> I think it's time to break out
> the colon again and use something like:
>
> &infix:<+>:(Complex, Complex);
>
> or
>
> &foo:(Str,Int)
>
> for ordinary functions. If it gets really popular people might
> even start writing:
>
> sub foo :(S
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-06 11:10 (-0700):
: > $$ref follow the ref list to the actual object.
:
: my $foo;
: my $bar = \$foo;
: my $quux = \$bar;
: my $xyzzy = \$quux;
:
: How then, with only $xyzzy,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 11:30:35AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> If you want to help, earn a billion dollars and write me into your
> will. And then peg out. Nothing personal. :-)
>
> Larry
Darn. So far, I'm, 0 for 3 on that plan.
However, I promise that item two will follow very shortly in
tim
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:24:23PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-06 11:10 (-0700):
: > $$ref follow the ref list to the actual object.
:
: my $foo;
: my $bar = \$foo;
: my $quux = \$bar;
: my $xyzzy = \$quux;
:
: How then, with only $xyzzy, do you get $bar
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 07:22:48PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: HaloO Larry,
:
: you wrote:
: >for ordinary functions. If it gets really popular people might
: >even start writing:
: >
: >sub foo :(Str,Int) {...}
:
: I like it, but that could mean it will not become popular :))
: And this
Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-06 11:10 (-0700):
> $$ref follow the ref list to the actual object.
my $foo;
my $bar = \$foo;
my $quux = \$bar;
my $xyzzy = \$quux;
How then, with only $xyzzy, do you get $bar? $$xyzzy would follow until
$foo. I don't like this at all.
> $ref.fo
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:50:11PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Juerd wrote:
: >And will Perl 6 reference values rather than their containers, that is:
: >will \$foo differ when $foo gets a new value, just as in Python id(foo)
: >changes after foo += 1?
:
: Depends on the definition of the seman
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
for ordinary functions. If it gets really popular people might
even start writing:
sub foo :(Str,Int) {...}
I like it, but that could mean it will not become popular :))
And this is also nice:
sub foo :(Str,Int) of Str {...}
Is a closure return type indicated with this
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:07:33AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Thomas Sandlaß writes:
: > Larry Wall wrote:
: > >Yes. It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
: > >Any &foo (or &foo:<...>) followed by <...> should be parsed as a single
: > >term selecting the function that MMD woul
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 04:31:08PM +0200, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >Yes. It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
: >Any &foo (or &foo:<...>) followed by <...> should be parsed as a single
: >term selecting the function that MMD would dispatch to given that
: >ty
Thomas Sandlaà writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >Yes. It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
> >Any &foo (or &foo:<...>) followed by <...> should be parsed as a single
> >term selecting the function that MMD would dispatch to given that
> >type signature.
>
> And I guess it's not a
Larry Wall wrote:
Yes. It should complain that = is not a valid type signature.
Any &foo (or &foo:<...>) followed by <...> should be parsed as a single
term selecting the function that MMD would dispatch to given that
type signature.
And I guess it's not allowed to have interspersed whitespace unl
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/emacs-iso.html
Coincidentally, last week the emacs developers decided to declare
iso-accents mode (dated 1998) obsolete. Emacs 21 (out for several
years now) has native support for language encodings.
-- Johan
16 matches
Mail list logo
