--
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:08:15
Larry Wall wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 07:36:00PM -0800, Brent Dax wrote:
>: I think that there should be two types of arg typing[1]: 'strict' and
>: 'loose'. Strict arg typing doesn't coerce, except to turn subclasses
>: into superclasses; loose arg typin
--
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:03:41
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>>
>>--
>>
>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
>> Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:14:17
Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>--
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
> Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>>As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
>>
>> A I is a piece of data.
>> A I is a variable that hold
--
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:29:29
Joseph F. Ryan wrote:
>As near as I can tell, the only problem with the nice flow of:
>
> A I is a piece of data.
> A I is a variable that holds a literal.
>
> A I is a sequence of literals and scalars.
> An I is a variable that holds a list.
>
>is the "Rvalue-
--
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:28:23
Luke Palmer wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:34:57 -0800
>> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 05:56 PM, Luke Palmer wrote:
>> > Indeed, this supports the distinction, which I will reiterate:
>> >
>> > - Ar
--
On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:28:43
gpurdy wrote:
>All --
>
>A4 gives this example of C:
>
>for @foo -> $a, $b { ... } # "for @foo into $a and $b..."
>
>but, this seems more natural to me (and, it turns out, closer to the P5
>syntax for ill or good):
>
>for $a, $b <- @foo { ... } # "for
--
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:08:06
Brent Dax wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison:
># All that said, can anyone come up with a case to
># confuse with <$File_Handle>?
>
>If you assume infinite lookahead, it's fine, but if not...
>
>...
>
>Is that a call t
--
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:26:13
Brent Dax wrote:
>I can honestly say at this point that I'd rather give up <$iterator>
>than lose hyperops.
I was thinking the same thing not long ago. But now
that I think about it, is ever going to be
confused for <$File_Handle>? The vector operation co
--
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:37:09
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>OK, by my count -- after editing to reflect Larry's notes -- only a few
>issues remain before the ops list can be completed.
>
>
>
>1) Need a definitive syntax for hypers,
> ^[op] and +op;
>have been most seriously propose
--
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 07:13:40
Damian Conway wrote:
>Yes. That superpositions are going to be so widely used once people
>catch on, that users going to curse us every time they have to
>write C at the start of every scope.
So, I open my inbox and see that it has been stuffed with Perl 6
--
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:02:20
Larry Wall wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Steve Canfield wrote:
>: Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
>:
>: BLAH:
>: if ($foo) {
>: ...
>: last BLAH if $bar;
>: ...
>: }
>
>I don't see why we need it offhand. But we might well h
--
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 16:49:57
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>Almost. At least perl 5's macros look like C. Emacs' macro horrors
>make C look like Lisp...
This is because C is _clearly_ a dialect of Lisp . . .
-Erik
>--
> Dan
>
>-
--
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 18:46:14
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
>I see us already smashing too many things into the method signature as it
>is. It will rapidly get messy if you have a method with a complex signature
>and a handful of attributes and preconditions.
This is the sort of creeping el
--
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:06:50
John Williams wrote:
>We should respect default values if arrays can declare them.
>
>Perhaps there will be a modifier for operator declarations to declare what
>the default behavior should be. Otherwise I don't know how different
>behaviors for different
--
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:24:11
Damian Conway wrote:
>
>Think of it as punctuation. As a necessary alternative to the poor
>overworked colon.
>
Or the poor overworked dot?
>
>
>> it all looks the same to me. And I like different things to look different.
>
>A fair point. My counterargume
--
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:26:08
Damian Conway wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>
>> Is it just me or is the 'is' property syntax a little
>> too intuitive? Seems like everywhere I turn, the
>> proposed syntax to solve a problem is to apply a
&g
reposted because my mailer is evil
--
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:31:45
Damian Conway wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>> I know that the property syntax is pseudo established,
>> but I'm beggining to become a bit jaded about all the
>> built in properties were
--
On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 09:31:45
Damian Conway wrote:
>Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
>
>> I know that the property syntax is pseudo established,
>> but I'm beggining to become a bit jaded about all the
>> built in properties were building. What about good ol&#x
> sub hidden (str $name, int $force is aka($override))
>{ ... }
I know that the property syntax is pseudo established,
but I'm beggining to become a bit jaded about all the
built in properties were building. What about good ol'
aliases?
sub hidden (str $name, int $force := $override)
{
Somewhere, in another thread . . .
Dr. Claw wrote . . .
>> sub hidden (str $name, int $force is aka($override))
>>{ ... }
>
>Yeah, that's what I meant.
Is it just me or is the 'is' property syntax a little
too intuitive? Seems like everywhere I turn, the
proposed syntax to solve a problem
--
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 07:45:37
Sean O'Rourke obviated:
To me a language's grammar, once
>defined, shouldn't do a lot of changing, internally or otherwise. When
>was the last time C's grammar changed? Or even gcc's implementation of
>it?
Granted . . .mostly. Were talking about Perl, the
It seems to me that what I mostly do is wave my arms
about my head with a concern and then stay silent
whenever praise is required. Everyone - consider
yourselves praised :-)
On to the concern (which I am fairly confident someone
will obviate). I've never touched the Perl internals
(and P5P
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Wow, this is nice. He means (I think) that this will be translated into
>> my Date $bday = Date->new('June 25, 2002');
I don't think this is going to work. First off, there
is no predefined constructor name in Perl. Secondly,
you can have multiple constructors in t
I've sent this message before, but Piers was kind
enough to point out that the CGI script I'm forced to
use to send mail does not readably format my messages,
increasing the likelyhood that they are ignored. So
here's a repost that's (hopefully) better to read.
Somewhat random question here:
We all know how to alias things in Perl 5. The binding operator allows aliasing in
Perl 6, I understand. So, how do we alias grammer rules? Here are my guesses.
Rules live in the same namespace as subroutines, so you can use the &. Or possibly
(because filehandle
Long have I been a fan of giving pure Perl modules the power to change the rules and
create a more built-in look, feel, and functionality. So, of course, I love %MY, I
love real named parameters, I love the ability to create iterators that look just like
native control structures. But while la
>Karl Glazebrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> disgusted:
>
> @solution = (^-@b + sqrt(@b^**2 ^+ 4^*@a^*@c) ) ^/ (2^*@a);
>[Stuff]
>If I was forced to write vector code like this I *WILL* give up on perl,
>and resort to Numerical
>Python or IDL instead.
>
You can always use the map and foreach lik
>What about parsing? I think the fact that Perl 6 will pretty much
>have parser capabilities built in is pretty distinctive.
>
>Ted
When someone wants to write a parser, they turn to Perl 90% of the time (at least to
prototype). The fact that they're really using a powerful lexer instead of a
Michael Schwerned:
>I've been trying to pick out what parts of Perl 6 would make a Java
>programmer sit up and go "I wish I had that" or a Python programmer think
>"Hmm, maybe there is more than one way to do it" and, in fine Perl
>tradition, a few things which make the whole audience go "what a b
>But unlike
>iterators, when you ask a generator for the next value, it picks up
>execution exactly where
>it left off when it returned the last value -- i
Aren't these what The Damien calls coroutines? Are we getting coroutines (RFC 30, as I
recall . . .)? I'm also big on seeing these.
Also,
--
On 02 Jul 2002 09:56:46 +010
pdcawley summed:
> Ruby iterators
>
>Ruby interators were the subject of Erik Steven Harrison's post, which
>also referred to 'pass by name' and 'the Jensen Machine', and wanted to
>know 'the Perl 6 stance on the matter'. Nobody has yet stepped u
--
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002 21:09:40
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
>
>> I don't know how the grammars are going, and I'm not fit to write one
>> myself,
>
>Hey, neither am I, but that hasn't stopped me from taking a stab or two,
>figuring that through pain comes
>
>Ah, Mr Wardley, I see you have finally apprehended the magnitude of my
>nefarious plan. Five years of plotting and scheming, of gaining influence and
>gradually insinuating my dastardly code creations into the community
>consciousness: all
>about to culminate in unleashing of Perl 6 on an uns
--
On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:21:39
Brent Dax wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
># Just read (skimmed) apocalypse 5, had one concern - it looks
># like we are on a serious collision course with parsing the
># various *mls.
>#
># before:
>#
># m#..etc#
>#
># after
>#
># m#\\\#
>
>That's intentiona
--
On Thu, 16 May 2002 12:36:42
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>SUMMARY
>
>Arrays should always have known lengths because that's what arrays do. This
>requirement is enforced culturally, not programmatically.
I totally agree that this should be enforced culturally. I think that the way a tied
>(Perl6 syntax obviously). I hope it's going to be possible to set that
>up automagically... (Yeah, I know, if/when Perl 6 gets macros...)
I've been playing around with Perl 5.6's lvalue subs. And (though at times irritating
to deal with) they're wonderful. It seems to me that the use of an ass
--
On Mon, 6 May 2002 16:26:16
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>*Alot of good answers to questions*
Appreciate the descent from the mountain to help clear things up down here.
-Erik
Is your boss reading your email? Probably
Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail.
Sign up today at http
Lots of people said:
>Lots of stuff about 'else' loops.
*Erik thunks himself some deep thought*
I see no true slippery slope here, especially if handled correctly. I suspect that an
explicit or implicit "why not" near the beginning of discussion lead to the feature
feeding frenzy and the slipp
--
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:27:11
abigail wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 04:42:07PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >
>> > Why isn't
>> >
>> > if %foo {"key"} {print "Hello 1"}
>> >
>> > equivalent with the perl5 syntax:
>> >
>> > if (%foo) {"key"} {print "H
>
>$a is a hash key
>$b is an array index
>$c is another hash key
>
>So, if I try:
>
>@multi_dim[$b][$a][$c]
>
>then it's obviously going to break. But how can I, the
>programmer, easily spot that? It's not as clear as:
>
>@multi_dim{$a}[$b]{$c}
>
>where I can see what I'm getting as I work thr
>>Besides no one has commented on Steve Fink's (I think it was him) idea
>>to store the result of the most recently executed conditional in $?. I
>>kinda like that idea myself. It makes mnemonic sense.
H . . . I could grow used to that. A couple of thoughts.
1) It doesn't seem to buy us muc
41 matches
Mail list logo
