Parrot 0.4.12 "Of the Caribbean" Released

2007-05-15 Thread chromatic
As I sailed into Shadow, a white bird of my desire came and sat upon my right shoulder, and I wrote a note and tied it to its leg and sent it on its way. The note said, "I am coming," and it was signed by me. ... The sun hung low on my left and the winds bellied the sails and

Re: explicit line termination with ";": why?

2007-05-15 Thread Jonathan Lang
Larry Wall wrote: Dave Whipp wrote: : A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of C with no block : defined? I.e. is It would be illegal syntax currently. As I understand it, the proposal is to say that if the parser finds a ';' where it was expecting to find a control block, it treats th

Re: explicit line termination with ";": why?

2007-05-15 Thread Daniel Hulme
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:14:44PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of > the current scope as a block (usually with a parameter), for certain > kinds of closure-heavy code. Maybe this is a case for one of Mr. Lang's custom semicolons with

Re: explicit line termination with ";": why?

2007-05-15 Thread Larry Wall
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:59:35AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote: : Jonathan Lang wrote: : : >Close. I'm thinking "added functionality for semicolon alternatives" : >rather than the "replace the semicolon" stunt that Semi::Semicolons : >pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between : >

Re: explicit line termination with ";": why?

2007-05-15 Thread Luke Palmer
On 5/15/07, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of C with no block defined? I.e. is given $foo { when 1 {...} }; equivalent to given $foo; when 1 {...}; Doubtful. However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of the current

Re: explicit line termination with ";": why?

2007-05-15 Thread Dave Whipp
Jonathan Lang wrote: Close. I'm thinking "added functionality for semicolon alternatives" rather than the "replace the semicolon" stunt that Semi::Semicolons pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between prefix: and postfix:, I think that it would be quite useful for postfix: t

Re: Is Perl 6 too late?

2007-05-15 Thread Larry Wall
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:48:34PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: : No one mentioned that if it wasn't for sigils, many strings would be : increased, length-wise, to do operator concatentation. If it wasn't for : that then simple string insertions couldn't be used. Well, except you can interpolate