On 5/4/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:56:44PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. The long dot here does seem to be
solving more important problems. Now I'm not as up to date with Perl 6 syntax
as I once was, nor as muc
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:56:44PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> On 5/1/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >But then again, as I said, I really don't see the problem that is being
> >solved.
>
> This "long-dot" can be used for many things, not just method calls.
Thanks for taking the
On 5/1/06, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe you all write your code differently to me, but looking through a
load of my OO code I had trouble finding three method calls in a row to
any methods on any objects, let alone six calls to the same method name
on different objects.
If I saw
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 01:15:58PM +0100, Smylers wrote:
> Jonathan Lang writes:
>
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see much downside to \. as a long dot.
> Folks want to be able to line stuff up, and to split statements over
> multiple lines. This is now possible.
You know, I'm still
"Jonathan Lang" schreef:
> When is the last time that you saw an underscore-only method name?
sub _{print"$_\n"};
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
Jonathan Lang writes:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > 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.
Why's t
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
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
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?
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;
Good (and floating) point.
Boom boom! ;-)
How about this:
$antler.bar;
$xyzzy.:bar;
$blah. .bar;
$foo. .bar;
That is, introduce only the non-space-filled .: variant, and retain the
space-filled long dot.
But do we really need *three* distinct forms of method call, in addition to
the (eas
Audrey Tang wrote:
>Damian Conway wrote:
>
>
>>Juerd wrote:
>>
>>
and propose ".:" as a solution
>>>$xyzzy.:foo();
>>>$fooz. :foo();
>>>$foo. :foo();
>>>
>>>
>>This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>>
>> foo. :bar()
>>
>>and:
Damian Conway wrote:
> Juerd wrote:
>>> and propose ".:" as a solution
>
>> $xyzzy.:foo();
>> $fooz. :foo();
>> $foo. :foo();
>
> This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>
>foo. :bar()
>
> and:
>
>foo :bar()
>
> depend on a visual difference of
On Saturday 29 April 2006 18:29, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> If dots looked like this:
>
>
>
> then they would be invisible.
Use a laptop with a speck of dust in the wrong place in slightly wrong
lighting and the wrong four pixels might as well be invisible.
Precious few of @Larry deserve the nicknam
Damian Conway wrote:
Juerd wrote:
> Audrey cleverly suggested that changing the second character would also
> work, and that has many more glyphs available. So she came up with
>
>> and propose ".:" as a solution
> $xyzzy.:foo();
> $fooz. :foo();
> $foo. :foo();
This would make the
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 19:03:28 -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Two invisible things look completely different to you?
If dots looked like this:
then they would be invisible.
--
Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://nothingmuch.woobling.org 0xEBD27418
pgplPt8CiApME.pgp
Description: PGP si
On Saturday 29 April 2006 16:58, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:49:45 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> > This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
> >
> >foo. :bar()
> >
> > and:
> >
> >foo :bar()
> >
> > depend on a visual difference of about four
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 PROTECTED] did not result in response or change.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> For
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:49:45 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>
>foo. :bar()
>
> and:
>
>foo :bar()
>
> depend on a visual difference of about four pixels. :-(
You're not counting the space around the dot, which counts
Juerd wrote:
Audrey cleverly suggested that changing the second character would also
work, and that has many more glyphs available. So she came up with
and propose ".:" as a solution
$xyzzy.:foo();
$fooz. :foo();
$foo. :foo();
This would make the enormous semantic difference
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 PROTECTED] did not result in response or change.
>
> Any ideas?
Forward that message (with full headers) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who will then app
4 -0700 (PDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A shorter long dot
Testing with sbc30k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 16:50 < audreyt> Juerd: write to p6l and explain the ".." conflict,
The current long dot consists of a dot, then whitespace, and then
another dot. The whitespac
> 16:50 < audreyt> Juerd: write to p6l and explain the ".." conflict,
The current long dot consists of a dot, then whitespace, and then
another dot. The whitespace is mandatory, which makes the construct at
least three characters long. Tripling the length of an operator, just to
make it alignable,
38 matches
Mail list logo
