On 2002-10-08 at 17:15:06, Larry Wall wrote:
> Seriously, () is just a special token. We could easily have used a
> special token like NULLLIST instead. What does INTERCAL use?
Well, INTERCAL doesn't have lists per se, but it does have arrays, whose
size is set by assignment: the lvalue is the n
According to Larry Wall:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> : I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
>
> Most of the uses of which are actually in void context [...]
I didn't realize you were distinguishing scalar from void in this, uh,
context. I agree that scalar comma is e
On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
: According to Larry Wall:
: > I suppose we could make comma merely puke in scalar context rather
: > than DWIM, at least optionally.
:
: I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
Most of the uses of which are actually in void context, where it
does
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Trey Harris wrote:
: In a message dated Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Noah White writes:
: > On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
: >
: > > Parens don't construct lists EVER! They only group elements
: > > syntactically. One common use of parens is to surround a
: >
On 6 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
: Do parens still provide list context on the left side of an assignment?
Er, kind of. More precisely, use of parens on the left provides a
flattening list context on the right side, just as in Perl 5. I guess
I did not make clear that a basic Perl 6 design decisio
On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Do parens still provide list context on the left side of an assignment?
> > What do these two do:
> >
> > my $x = @ARGS;
> > my ($y) = @ARGS;
> >
> > Parens just grouping suggests that C<$x> and C<$y> should be the same
> > (which may well be good, a
Larry Wall wrote:
>I cringe every time someone says "Parens construct lists in Perl 6."
>Parens don't construct lists in Perl 6.
>
>: Additionally, parentheses have one inconsistency which brackets do not:
>: This is the following case, already shown on perl6-language:
>:
>: $a = ();
Luke Palmer wrote:
> > my $x = @ARGS;
> > my ($y) = @ARGS;
>
> Maybe:?
>
> my ($y) ^= @ARGS;
Or (presumably equivalently):
my $y ^= @ARGS;
But that's horrible. Presumably with two or more variables the comma
would denote list context, so the caret is only needed for exactly one
> Do parens still provide list context on the left side of an assignment?
> What do these two do:
>
> my $x = @ARGS;
> my ($y) = @ARGS;
>
> Parens just grouping suggests that C<$x> and C<$y> should be the same
> (which may well be good, as it's a subtle distinction which trips up
> many beginn
Larry Wall wrote:
> Parens don't construct lists in Perl 6. They merely group.
> The only difference from Perl 5 is that if they happen to group a
> comma in scalar context, the comma acts differently, not the parens.
Do parens still provide list context on the left side of an assignment?
What
In a message dated Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Noah White writes:
>
> On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> > Parens don't construct lists EVER! They only group elements
> > syntactically. One common use of parens is to surround a
> > comma-separated list, but the *commas* are cre
On Sunday, October 6, 2002, at 01:50 AM, Brent Dax wrote:
> Parens don't construct lists EVER! They only group elements
> syntactically. One common use of parens is to surround a
> comma-separated list, but the *commas* are creating the list, *not* the
> parens!
>
Following this rule would m
Noah White:
# I think needless obfuscation is treating $a = (10); as a
# scalar instead
# of a list reference containing one item when the rest of the the $a =
# () are list references.
I think needless obfuscation is treating $a = (10) differently than $a =
10. The latter is the behavior we'
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> [ Stuff about how commas construct lists, not parens ]
>
Wow, somehow you've convinced me that all the problems I saw before aren't
really there. Well, switch on the light, there's no monsters under the
bed afterall.
> : This has the added benefit that there is a significa
On Saturday, October 5, 2002, at 09:33 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
>
>
> : Additionally, parentheses have one inconsistency which brackets do
> not:
> : This is the following case, already shown on perl6-language:
> :
> : $a = ();# $a is a list reference with 0 elements
> : $a = (10);
According to Larry Wall:
> I suppose we could make comma merely puke in scalar context rather
> than DWIM, at least optionally.
I rather like Perl 5's scalar comma operator.
> : $a = ();# $a is a list reference with 0 elements
> : $a = (10); # $a is the scalar 10
> : $a
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Luke Palmer wrote:
: =head1 TITLE
:
: Square brackets are the only list constructor
:
: =head1 VERSION
:
: Maintainer: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: Date: 24 Sep 2002
: Number: 362 (?)
: Version: 1
:
: =head1 ABSTRACT
:
: This RFC responds to the fury on perl6
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [snip]
Luke, thanks and congratulations on a well written case. You put into
words exactly what I was trying to put into words myself. Now I don't have
to finish this ugly draft I have lying around.
-Miko
--
Luke Palmer wrote at Wed, 25 Sep 2002 00:09:41 +0200:
Very good written text.
> =head1 DESCRIPTION
>
> Because of the addition of the flattening operator, parentheses in Perl 6,
> when used as list constructors, are entirely redundant with brackets.
> Additionally, parentheses have one incons
=head1 TITLE
Square brackets are the only list constructor
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2002
Number: 362 (?)
Version: 1
=head1 ABSTRACT
This RFC responds to the fury on perl6-language about the redundancy of
parentheses and brackets with res
20 matches
Mail list logo
