Oh, sorry... Larry Wall didn't actually to Phoenix-pm. At least not that
I know of. This was a forward from me. Thought ya'll might find this
interesting... on a Perl 5 level, in a Perl 6 sort of way, and also on
the subject of software refactoring.
-scott
On 0, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Hi Peter,
There are several source filters that make select changes and modules
that give select Perl 6 features to Perl 5. All in all, there's a
lot there -- I've written Perl6::Contexts, for example, which diddles
the bytecode to give Perl 5 programs most of the new contexts from
Perl 6. In fac
On 0, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However, is the name "boolean" final? I would prefer "true", perhaps
> with a corresponding "false".
I want an "okay". Routines should be able to "return okay" to indicate
an ambivalent degree of success. "okay" would be defined as "true | false",
so:
Since this horse came back to life, I'm going to give it a good thrashing, and
I've got goons to help me.
I've asked the Phoenix Perl Mongers for their take on the situation. I've posted
a _completely_ unbiased synopsis of the situation. Here are excerpts from the replies:
Tony's take:
"Rename
Ack - well, I was downright antagonistic, so I really earned it.
I can only try to accept criticism as well as the rest of the list has.
Apology accepted of course, and an apology of my own to the list who had to
suffer me and chromatic who didn't take me too seriously ;)
-scott
On 0, chroma
e offended on behalf of other people I hope you really enjoy being offended.
Na na na! One of these days I'm going to resolve to hunt you down to irritate you
as you do to me.
-scott
On 0, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 12:27, Scott Walters
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hash<> retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to counter the
damage of removal of barewords
* %hash`foo occupies an important nitch, trading features (slice, autovivication)
to optmize for
I propose we pretend that $$foo = 'bar' stills work and use that as a benchmark
for hash subscripting ease. If it requires fewer keystrokes or neuron fires to
write Perl 4 code, then Perl 6 might be succeding on the programming in the
small but failing at programming in the large.
${'bar'} =
Juerd,
You'd do well to not remove the conclusion of my post when the conclusion
is that the I strongly support you. Otherwise, your reply, read out of
context, sounds like you're fending off an attacker ;)
People would do well to seperate the merits of the idea from the merits of the
suggested
When I announced that I fixed a version of Perl6::Variables to do <<>>,
crickets chirped. I dislike having to place a lot of matching quotes,
brackets, parenthesis, and braces in my code. You must stop and
visually inspect code to make sure it balances out and even then is a
common source of bug c
> What is a list reference?
> What is an array?
...
> What is a list?
Hi Juerd,
There was a thread on this not long ago. I forgot it's name.
Apo 2 said:
[1,2,3]
is syntactic sugar for something like:
scalar(list(1,2,3))
... suggesting that lists could have references taken to them, much
2.tar.gz
This version still doesn't handle %foo{'bar'}<>.
Thanks,
-scott
On 0, Scott Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've updated Damian's Perl6::Variables module to treat %foo{bar} as %foo{bar()}
> and to handle %foo<> and %foo<
I've updated Damian's Perl6::Variables module to treat %foo{bar} as %foo{bar()}
and to handle %foo<> and %foo<>. If this syntax is finalized, I'll
send Damian a patch.
This is at:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-authors/id/S/SW/SWALTERS/Perl6-Variables-0.02_001.tar.gz
http://slowass.net/~scott/Pe
This is still raging. I was going to let it slide. I hate the mechanics
behind squeeky wheels. Makes it harder to evaluate arguments for their
merits by clogging the filters. Okey, enough metaphores.
On 0, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. Cryptic, but in a different way than
On 0, Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also, isn't it a pain to type all these characters when they are not on
> your keyboard? As a predominately Win2k/XP user in the US, I see all
> these glyphs just fine,but having to remember Alt+0171 for a « is going
> to get old fast... I much so
15 matches
Mail list logo
