Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
> > > that "use English" was a waste of time and effort, a bandaid trying to
> > > act a
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I find that I don't remember many of the less-frequently-used perlvars
> (where less-frequently-used depends on the types of programs I write,
> obviously). I certainly couldn't tell you off-hand the differences
> among $< $> $( and $). I'd have to l
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
> > that "use English" was a waste of time and effort, a bandaid trying to
> > act as a tourniquet.
>
> I think it's
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> > the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> > number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
> guts to w
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
> and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
[snip]
> I've yet to understand why I'd *want* to use English regularly; so far as
> I can tell, it has essentially no benefit
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... and don't know use English. Why can't they learn to use it?
Why can't the new users of Perl learn the real variable names?
I guess I don't buy the argument that the real names are harder to learn.
Most of them have fairly useful mnemonics, you s
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I have a very serious problem with use English, namely that it makes Perl
> code much more difficult to read and maintain for people who know Perl.
> Writing something that's marginally easier to understand for a beginner
> and harder to understand for an expert doesn't st
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I have a very serious problem with use English, namely that it makes Perl
> code much more difficult to read and maintain for people who know Perl
... and don't know use English. Why can't they learn to use it? Are
you saying that nothing is worth knowing unless the oldste
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> How many people really "use English" other than beginners?
> I would use it, but I heard a nasty rumor that it incurs the same
> penalty as using $' and such. I try to avoid too much line noise in
> code that has to be maintain
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> How many people really "use English" other than beginners?
I would use it, but I heard a nasty rumor that it incurs the same
penalty as using $' and such. I try to avoid too much line noise in
code that has to be maintained. At least -r has an easy mnemonic. Some
of the p
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> You suggested:
>
> file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
>
> That's really insane. The goal was to produce code that's legible.
I'd always use -w and would never use anything else. I was just
brainstorming.
And I personally don't understand your sugge
>You suggested:
> file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
Not that I'm advocating it but you do something like:
test($file, WRITEABLE);
test($file, WRITEABLE & READABLE);
...
where constants are defined for various "attributes" to be tested for...
Currently 23, or 3 bytes... (not that
You suggested:
file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
That's really insane. The goal was to produce code that's legible.
That is hardly better. It's much worse than is_writable or writable
or whatnot. Just use -w if that's what you want.
--tom
Visit our website at http://www.ub
./sun4-solaris/POSIX.pm:sub isatty {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scope {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_state {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_miniwhile { # check for one-line loop
(`foo() while $y--')
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scalar {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_su
> if ( all { $_->($file) } \&writable, \&directory ) { ...
Is that the PDL C?
With the superpositional C it would be:
if ( all(\&writable, \&directory)->($file) ) { ...
:-)
Hm. Maybe C, C, etc. could return objects
that equate to a filename *only* if the original predicate is t
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> In fact, I'd much rather still a more generic function like 'want' that
> takes a list of things to check:
>
>file($file, 'd'); # is it a directory?
>file($file, 'wd'); # is it a writable directory?
if ( all { $_->($file) } \&writable, \&directory ) { ...
Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>
> > is_readable(file) is really -r(file)
>
> Has unpleasant syntax saying "is_readable". Should be like normal
> English predicates. Get the idea you do. Is better even the Lisp -p
> convention!
>
> What's wrong with doing it like I (and maybe a few others) speak
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
>
> Z.
>
> =item perl6storm #0101
>
> Just like the "use english" pragma (the modern not-yet-written
> version of "use English" module), make something for legible
> fileops.
>
> is_readable(file) is
I plan to offer a more formal RFC of this idea.
Z.
=item perl6storm #0101
Just like the "use english" pragma (the modern not-yet-written
version of "use English" module), make something for legible
fileops.
is_readable(file) is really -r(file)
note that these are hard to write now due to
20 matches
Mail list logo
