I think that Jonathan meant for his reply to my message to go to the
list, so I am including it in its entirety, in my reply.
At 11:23 PM -0700 7/13/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Darren Duncan wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
So the purpose of === is to provide a means of comparison that doesn't
implic
At 10:36 PM -0700 7/13/06, Jonathan Lang wrote:
So the purpose of === is to provide a means of comparison that doesn't
implicitly coerce its arguments to a particular type?
Yes, absolutely. The === takes 2 arguments exactly as they are,
without changing anything, and says if they are two appe
Yuval Kogman wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Apparently, there are _four_ basic kinds of comparison: the ones
> mentioned above, and == (I believe that eq works enough like == that
> whatever can be said about one in relation to ===, =:=, or eqv can be
> said about the other). I'd be quite interes
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 21:55:15 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Apparently, there are _four_ basic kinds of comparison: the ones
> mentioned above, and == (I believe that eq works enough like == that
> whatever can be said about one in relation to ===, =:=, or eqv can be
> said about the other). I
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:50:19 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:32:08PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> : [1] My preferred ergonomics:
> :
> : 1. eqv goes away
> : 2. what was eqv is renamed to ===
> : 3. === becomes =:=, which has a "constant" feel to it
> : 4.
David Green wrote:
I think I understand it... (my only quibble with the syntax is that
=== and eqv look like spin-offs of == and eq, but I don't know what
to suggest instead (we're running short of combinations of = and : !))
Agreed.
So there are three basic kinds of comparison: whether the v
On 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs =:=.
It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
this is not perfect.
I think I understand it... (my only quibble with the syntax is that
=== and eqv look like spin-offs o
At 5:36 PM +0300 7/13/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> User defined types can choose on their own whether to override
=== and/or .id or not, and they would use their own knowledge of
their internal structures to do an appropriate
deep comparison. There is no need to try to generate some kind of
uni
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 15:44:33 -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Now, let's look at some of the good that ~~ does for us:
>
> $a ~~ "Some string" # sameness
> $a ~~ 5 # sameness
> $a ~~ ->{...} # test
> $a ~~ /.../ # regex matching
>
> That's g
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:50:19PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Then $a eqv $b and $a leg $b both just default to a signature that selects
: everything.
Though arguably P5's string-forcing semantics should be C and the
polymorphic semantics should probably be C.
Larry
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 09:32:08PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
: [1] My preferred ergonomics:
:
: 1. eqv goes away
: 2. what was eqv is renamed to ===
: 3. === becomes =:=, which has a "constant" feel to it
: 4. =:= is rarely useful IMHO, so you can just type
: variabl
I'm told that I did a terrible job of making my point in the === thread,
and nothingmuch asked me on IRC to re-state my concerns. I'll do so
briefly, and then give examples. Please do have a look at the examples,
just in case I'm not clear.
Overview:
~~ is great. It matches on all kinds of useful
So, Larry assisted by Audrey explained the purpose of === vs eqv vs
=:=.
It makes sense now, but I still feel that as far as ergonomics go
this is not perfect. Then again, I trust that Larry's opinion is
probably better and at the very least more likely to be accepted
than mine ;-) [1]
So, this
Audrey has asked me to split S29 AKA Perl6/Spec/Functions.pod up due to
its rapidly expanding size. The strategy that she suggested is basically
what I'm leaning toward, but I wanted to get feedback (esp. from Larry
and other Synopsians).
I want to be clear, I'm not asking for help coming up with
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 00:55:30 -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> So, in the general case, it would seem best if the binary operator === was
> just an ordinary method that each class provides, rather than requiring
> classes to defined a .id. Or
> in addition to this to help with performance, a .
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 17:52 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 12:51:57PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : I would assume that all classes automatically define:
> :
> : multi submethod *infix: ($self: $?CLASS) { $self }
>
> Hmm, "as" is really only intended for explicit type mutat
At 7:25 PM +0300 7/12/06, Yuval Kogman wrote:
Over at #perl6 we had a short discussion on =:=, ===, and ~~, mostly raised by
ajs's discussion on Str items and ===.
Coincidentally, I raised almost the same questions there a week
earlier, and had a brief discussion with audreyt about it, though
17 matches
Mail list logo
