On 4/26/2004 2:16 PM, Rod Adams wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
In general it's probably a lousy idea to rely on #!/usr/bin/perl6 to
select language since you want the version number to select the
version of Parrot you're running, not the version of Perl.
One thing that occurred to me over the weekend i
> "Larry" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Larry> It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply
Larry> switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax.
Larry> Any program that uses colon switches instead of minus switches would
Larry> then automatically be
why not add a -6 perl flag:
perl -6 foo.pl
perl -6e 'print "yahoo\n"'
-corris
On Apr 26, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Juerd wrote:
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-26 13:02 (-0500):
I know this sounds slightly irrational but I don't like using shifted
characters to offset my command line switches. A
Larry Wall wrote:
In general it's probably a lousy idea to rely on #!/usr/bin/perl6 to
select language since you want the version number to select the
version of Parrot you're running, not the version of Perl.
One thing that occurred to me over the weekend is that we could fix all
the one-liners u
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-26 13:02 (-0500):
> I know this sounds slightly irrational but I don't like using shifted
> characters to offset my command line switches. Also, that colon seems
> *way* overloaded. :-) How about = instead?
Overloaded, but similar to :pairs and s:modifiers.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:44:57AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> One thing that occurred to me over the weekend is that we could fix all
> the one-liners using a similar strategy to the package/module/class
> switch. It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply
> switch to :x syntax for comma
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 06:48:56PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
: > It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply
: > switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax.
:
: And POSIX be damned!
And maybe we should rename POSIX to NEGI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> It would be a (roughly) zero growth option to simply
> switch to :x syntax for command-line switches instead of -x syntax.
And POSIX be damned!
--
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
- Agent J, Men in Black
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 07:23:28PM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
: Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start all my perl programs with
: /usr/bin/perl5. Today, I would be quite unhappy if I *still* needed to
: do it that way.
In general it's probably a lousy idea to rely on #!/usr/bin/perl6 to
se
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 13:23, Johan Vromans wrote:
> "Gregor N. Purdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ... that I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my
> > Perl 6 programs with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" instead of
> > "#!/usr/bin/perl",
>
> Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start
"Gregor N. Purdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... that I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my
> Perl 6 programs with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" instead of
> "#!/usr/bin/perl",
Ten years ago I was perfectly happy to start all my perl programs with
/usr/bin/perl5. Today, I would be qui
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
Personally, I view Perl 6 as such a completely new language (although
still Perlish in spirit, it is very different in other respects), that
I would be perfectly happy to be required to start all my Perl 6
programs with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" instead of "#!/usr/bin/perl", just
t
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 21:23, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> Lets try that again, since I think you parsed my email in a way I
> didn't intend (and its at least 50% my fault)
Hey! *I* have to step up for 50% of the blame now? Where's my lawyer!
;-)
> In my opinion, starting a script with "#!/usr/bin/per
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Cantrell writes:
>> A few days ago I briefly discussed with Nicholas Clark (current perl 5.8
>> pumpking) about making perl5 code forward-compatible with perl6. A
>> quick look through the mailing list archives didn't turn up anything
>> obvious, an
Brent --
I think I missed your point. I'll refer to your two code chunks as
(a) and (b). Maybe you are getting at a finer point, though...
What you've said in (a) is pretty much what I hinted about Inline::Perl6
in my message. If you pass it to a Perl 6 interpreter, then it will
probably use tha
Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
#!/usr/bin/perl6
... # Perl 6 stuff here
use 5; # or, whatever
# Perl 5 stuff here
no 5; # or, whatever
# More Perl 6 stuff here
use python; # you get the idea
Why conflate the two at all? Perl 5 has two separate syntaxes for
forcing a version and embed
Brent --
Clever points are relatively high here, but I find the idea of
doing the notionally simultaneous parse uncomfortable. I really
don't want my programs subject to a hidden double parse cost.
Regards,
-- Gregor
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 15:30, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Aaron Sherman
Lets try that again, since I think you parsed my email in a way I
didn't intend (and its at least 50% my fault)
--
In my opinion, starting a script with "#!/usr/bin/perl6" should force
the interpreter to treat it like Perl 6, and if it does anything else
that's just ugly. Similarly, start
Aaron Sherman wrote:
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 09:29, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
So, we are moving in a more verbose direction, which is a bummer for
people who like to write one-liners and other tiny programs.
perl6 -i.bak -ple 'rule octet {\d{1,2}|<[01]>\d{2}|2[<[1-4]>\d|5<[1-5]>]} s:g/\b\.\.\
On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 09:29, Gregor N. Purdy wrote:
> So, we are moving in a more verbose direction, which is a bummer for
> people who like to write one-liners and other tiny programs.
perl6 -i.bak -ple 'rule octet {\d{1,2}|<[01]>\d{2}|2[<[1-4]>\d|5<[1-5]>]}
s:g/\b\.\.\.\b/IP ADDR/;' *
So, we are moving in a more verbose direction, which is a bummer for
people who like to write one-liners and other tiny programs.
Assuming only Perl 6 is installed on your system, if your script
started with:
#!/usr/bin/perl
all the stuff about trying to figure out what version you are using
w
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 09:16:21AM -0600, Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
> The original question was "how do I label my code as Perl 5?" The
> correct answer, according to Apocalypse 1, is to start your source with
> "package." If you didn't want to put your code in a package, then start
> it with "pack
On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 11:16, Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
> Here is the relevant paragraph from the apocalypse:
> I hereby declare that a |package| declaration at the front of a
> file unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code. If
> you want to write a Perl 6 module or class, it'll start
Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
The original question was "how do I label my code as Perl 5?" The
correct answer, according to Apocalypse 1, is to start your source with
"package." If you didn't want to put your code in a package, then start
it with "package main".
The other question was "how do I label
Matthew Walton wrote:
Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
Matthew Walton wrote:
That could be problematic, because if Perl 6 sees something like:
my %myhash;
%myhash{'foo'} = 'bar';
It's going to think 'ahah', perl 5'. Because it doesn't contain any
Perl 6 keyword (such as 'module' or 'class'), as Mark sai
At 4:07 PM +0100 4/13/04, Matthew Walton wrote:
Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
Matthew Walton wrote:
That could be problematic, because if Perl 6 sees something like:
my %myhash;
%myhash{'foo'} = 'bar';
Is it going to think 'ahah, perl 6' or 'perl 5 with errors'?
It's going to think 'ahah', perl 5'. Be
David Cantrell writes:
> A few days ago I briefly discussed with Nicholas Clark (current perl 5.8
> pumpking) about making perl5 code forward-compatible with perl6. A
> quick look through the mailing list archives didn't turn up anything
> obvious, and I don't recall any mechanism being presented
Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
Matthew Walton wrote:
That could be problematic, because if Perl 6 sees something like:
my %myhash;
%myhash{'foo'} = 'bar';
Is it going to think 'ahah, perl 6' or 'perl 5 with errors'?
It's going to think 'ahah', perl 5'. Because it doesn't contain any Perl
6 keyword (su
Matthew Walton wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2004-04-13 at 13:16:02, David Cantrell wrote:
Perl 6, we are promised, will try to run "legacy" code unchanged. How
will it spot such legacy code?
My understanding has been that perl6 will assume a program is Perl 5
unless
it sees a Perl 6 keywo
On Tue, Apr 13, 2004 at 02:27:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> David Cantrell skribis 2004-04-13 13:16 (+0100):
> > Perl 6, we are promised, will try to run "legacy" code unchanged. How
> > will it spot such legacy code? Doing this reliably is a hard problem,
> > but we can make it easier. I suggest t
David Cantrell skribis 2004-04-13 13:16 (+0100):
> Perl 6, we are promised, will try to run "legacy" code unchanged. How
> will it spot such legacy code? Doing this reliably is a hard problem,
> but we can make it easier. I suggest that people put:
> use perl5;
Why change what already works?
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2004-04-13 at 13:16:02, David Cantrell wrote:
Perl 6, we are promised, will try to run "legacy" code unchanged. How
will it spot such legacy code?
My understanding has been that perl6 will assume a program is Perl 5 unless
it sees a Perl 6 keyword such as 'module' or 'c
On 2004-04-13 at 13:16:02, David Cantrell wrote:
> Perl 6, we are promised, will try to run "legacy" code unchanged. How
> will it spot such legacy code?
My understanding has been that perl6 will assume a program is Perl 5 unless
it sees a Perl 6 keyword such as 'module' or 'class'.
--
Mark
A few days ago I briefly discussed with Nicholas Clark (current perl 5.8
pumpking) about making perl5 code forward-compatible with perl6. A
quick look through the mailing list archives didn't turn up anything
obvious, and I don't recall any mechanism being presented in any of the
Apocalypses, so .
34 matches
Mail list logo
