Here is an update to Synopsis 3 incorporating recent additions. If
any of this is wrong or disagreeable, this is the time to say so.
Luke
S03.pod.diff
Description: Binary data
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 04:13:02AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: What is the resulting data structure in each of the following:
:
: -<< [1, 2]
[-1, -2]
: -<< [[1,2], [3,4]]
[[-1,-2], [-3,-4]]
This is assuming that AoA is treated as a two dimensional shape, of course.
One could imagin
What is the resulting data structure in each of the following:
-<< [1, 2]
-<< [[1,2], [3,4]]
-<< [[1,2], 3]
[[1,2], 3] >>+<< [[4,5], 6]
[1, 2, [3]] >>+<< [[4,5], 6]
Luke
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:39:24AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Actually, that's an argument that : is in a different class than the regex
: quantifiers, and required named should be
:
: sub bar (+$:key)
:
: as I speculated earlier. Maybe we just force that to bind to $key instead
: of $:key.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 06:30:41PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: In short, "me too".
:
: Now some comments:
:
: > foo($a, $b, $c)
: >
: > You *know* that you're passing three positionals.
:
: This is very very important for leas
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 08:27:38 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Plus I still think it's a really bad idea to allow intermixing of
> positionals and named. We could allow named at the beginning or end
> but still keep a constraint that all positionals must occur together
> in one zone.
This is someth
Hmm, if we take + away from named, it can become the "required" marker,
so
sub foo ($a,$b,?$c)
is really short for
sub foo (+$a,+$b,?$c)
and required named parameters then become
sub bar (+:$key)
And, of course, that means that
sub baz (+?$key)
is a required optional paramet
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
In short, "me too".
Now some comments:
> foo($a, $b, $c)
>
> You *know* that you're passing three positionals.
This is very very important for least surprise and all that.
> It's much less work for the runtime. You don't have to
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:31:34AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: I propose that we move the magic out of the Pair type, and into a
: syntactic form.
That's kinda the direction we were already moving with the *%foo proposal,
so I think I like it, but I'll need to steep my brain in a bit more caffeine
We've seen many problems come up with the current special treatment of
pairs. Here's what I can think of:
* Pairs are restricted to a particular position in the argument list, which
leads to confusion (why isn't this being passed named?) and poor
end-weight in something like this:
f
10 matches
Mail list logo
