Author: larry
Date: Sun Apr 30 18:55:42 2006
New Revision: 9048
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
Couple more long dots.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod(or
Author: larry
Date: Sun Apr 30 18:51:14 2006
New Revision: 9047
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
More long dot cleanup from trey++ et al.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
==
--- doc/trunk/design/syn/
Larry Wall wrote:
Seems so to me too. I don't see much downside to \. as a long dot.
The only remaining problem that I see for the long dot is largely
orthogonal to the selection of the first and last characters - namely,
that your only choice for filler is whitespace. Although the C<\.>
opti
In a message dated Sun, 30 Apr 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The whitespace in the middle may include any of the comment forms above.
-Because comments always count as whitespace, the dots in
+Because comments always count as whitespace, the C<\.> in
-$object.#{ foo }.say
+$object\#{ f
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 03:47:54AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 18:12:34 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> > > I get a message like this for every message that I send to this list.
> > > Trying to contact [EMAIL PROTECT
Author: larry
Date: Sun Apr 30 10:43:33 2006
New Revision: 9042
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S03.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S04.pod
doc/trunk/design/syn/S12.pod
Log:
Long dot is now introduced by backslash.
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 06:33:01PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:58:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > Neither of those are currently legal in infix position. The backslash
:
: > Backslash also has the advantage of making sense to a C programmer:
: >
: > $foo\
:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 07:01:06PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Gaal Yahas skribis 2006-04-30 16:05 (+0300):
> > But it doesn't work across lines:
> > $and_a_long_one_I_still_want_to_align.
> > :foo()
>
> Explain to me why it wouldn't work, please. I don't get it.
This form certainly w
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 09:58:21AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> Neither of those are currently legal in infix position. The backslash
> Backslash also has the advantage of making sense to a C programmer:
>
> $foo\
> .foo();
So this also would be legal?
$foo
Larry Wall skribis 2006-04-30 9:58 (-0700):
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:15:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> : Larry indicated that changing the long dot would have to involve
> : changing the first character. The only feasible solution in the "tiny
> : glyphs" section was the backtick. I refrain from e
Gaal Yahas skribis 2006-04-30 16:05 (+0300):
> But it doesn't work across lines:
> $and_a_long_one_I_still_want_to_align.
> :foo()
Explain to me why it wouldn't work, please. I don't get it.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_h
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:15:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry indicated that changing the long dot would have to involve
: changing the first character. The only feasible solution in the "tiny
: glyphs" section was the backtick. I refrain from explaining why that
: will widely be considered a bad
Juerd wrote:
> foo.___:bar
Would suffice for my needs. Not sure if people are willing to give up
their underscore-only method names, though.
When is the last time that you saw an underscore-only method name?
Gaal Yahas wrote:
But it doesn't work across lines:
Take another look at my o
> I don't think it's ugly. It's not any less tidy.
>
> $xyzzy.foo() $xyzzy.foo()
> $fooz.:foo() $fooz.:foo()
> $foo._:foo() $foo. :foo()
> $da.__:foo() $fa. :foo()
>
> My variable names aren't so long that I'm likely to have
> foo.___:bar, and $foo.__:bar is clean.
B
John Siracusa skribis 2006-04-30 8:15 (-0400):
> >> foo.___:bar
> > Would suffice for my needs. Not sure if people are willing to give up
> > their underscore-only method names, though.
> No one's going to use either of these because they're ugly.
"I am not going to use either of these becau
On 4/30/06 7:44 AM, Juerd wrote:
> Jonathan Lang skribis 2006-04-29 19:08 (-0700):
>> Is there a reason that we've been insisting that a long dot should use
>> whitespace as filling?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> foo.___.bar
>
> Would still have the problem of clashing with .. when there's no _ i
Jonathan Lang skribis 2006-04-29 19:08 (-0700):
> Is there a reason that we've been insisting that a long dot should use
> whitespace as filling?
I don't know.
> foo.___.bar
Would still have the problem of clashing with .. when there's no _ in
between.
> foo.___:bar
Would suffice fo
Yuval Kogman skribis 2006-04-30 2:58 (+0300):
> > We need to be careful not to require the language to solve problems that
> > are better solved with tools.
> On that point I agree, but I think it was a question of
> aesthetics... Juerd?
Yes, it was about both aesthetics and the extra wor
chromatic skribis 2006-04-30 2:06 (-0700):
> I'm still wondering what's awful about:
> $antler.bar;
>$xyzzy.bar;
> $blah.bar;
> $foo.bar;
That's what I will do when current long dot stays, but I prefer to keep
things left-aligned to the indentation level. These cascades look messy.
Audrey Tang skribis 2006-04-30 17:31 (+0800):
> Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Or, to put it another way: what hard problem is it that you guys are
> > actively avoiding, that you've spent a week talking about making
> > substantial changes to the language in order to facilitate lining up
> > method na
Damian Conway skribis 2006-04-30 9:49 (+1000):
> This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>foo. :bar()
> and:
>foo :bar()
And how is that very different from the enormous semantic difference
between:
foo. .bar()
and:
foo .bar()
that already exists?
dear camels,
especially all german speaking camels.
im currently writing a perl6 tutorial in a wiki at:
http://wiki.perl-community.de/bin/view/Wissensbasis/Perl6Tutorial
Please join if you like or help when finished and nothing better there
to translate to english.
Its nearly half ready, vars, op
Austin Hastings wrote:
> Or, to put it another way: what hard problem is it that you guys are
> actively avoiding, that you've spent a week talking about making
> substantial changes to the language in order to facilitate lining up
> method names?
That's a very good point too.
Initially it's just
On Saturday 29 April 2006 21:50, Damian Conway wrote:
> Is:
>
> > $antler. .bar;
> > $xyzzy. .bar;
> > $blah. .bar;
> > $foo. .bar;
>
> really so intolerable, for those who are gung-ho to line up the method
> names?
I'm still wondering what's awful about:
$antler.bar;
$xyzzy.bar;
24 matches
Mail list logo
