At 09:16 AM 4/26/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:33:33AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> > | Alternately, we can overload . to do a deref on (blessed?) references,
> > | and
> > | concat otherwise.
> >
> > I think this would lead to hard to find bugs when someone
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:23:47PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:16:46AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > SPACE SENSITIVE and SOME OF US HAVE TO TEACH IT. Do you understand yet?
Just for the record, I'm totally with Simon here. Having . do triple
duty (decimals, method
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:33:33AM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> How about symbolic refs to function names?
>
> $a = $x ? "hop" : "skip";
> $b = $y ? "scotch" : "soda";
>
> $a.$b;# call one of hop.scotch, skip.scotch, hop.soda, skip.soda
5.005_03 and under required parens after the
Edward Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > beautiful. Then extending this is simple, consistent, easy to read,
> > > compatible with perl5..
> >
> > I'm not sure that that was the point I was trying to make.
> > If nothing else, the '.' would then be responsible for *three*
> > different
>
> More often that you might think. I see Perl folks who love white
> space writing:
>
> print
> $cgi -> header,
> $cgi -> start_html,
> $cgi -> h2( 'my page' ),
> $cgi -> hr,
> $cgi -> a(
> { -href => 'http://geeknest.com' },
>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 07:23:47PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
: On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:16:46AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:33:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
: > > > Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* this language.
: > > Then I guess that either space sen
> > beautiful. Then extending this is simple, consistent, easy to read,
> > compatible with perl5..
>
> I'm not sure that that was the point I was trying to make.
> If nothing else, the '.' would then be responsible for *three*
> different actions.
Right, but what *I* am saying is that any give
Edward Peschko writes:
> I think its really time to have a vote on this, I think that all
> that has been said about this issue has been said...
It's definitely not time for a vote. Larry'll take what's been said
by both sides and make a decision, just one of a zillion different
decisions that h
On Wednesday 25 April 2001 21:37, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > '.' is already, to some extent, space sensitive anyway, because it
> > has to pull double duty as a decimal point, as well.
> >
> > '4.5' (4.5) vs '4 .5' (45) vs '4. 5' (missing operator)
>
> beautiful. Then extending this is simple, cons
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 03:16:46AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:33:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* this language.
> > Then I guess that either space sensitive '.' is the answer
>
> Sorry. I'll try it again.
>
> SPACE SENSI
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:33:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* this language.
> Then I guess that either space sensitive '.' is the answer
Sorry. I'll try it again.
SPACE SENSITIVE and SOME OF US HAVE TO TEACH IT. Do you understand yet?
Are you *reall
> '.' is already, to some extent, space sensitive anyway, because it has
> to pull double duty as a decimal point, as well.
>
> '4.5' (4.5) vs '4 .5' (45) vs '4. 5' (missing operator)
beautiful. Then extending this is simple, consistent, easy to read, compatible
with perl5..
Ed
On Wednesday 25 April 2001 18:33, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:30:37PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:38:50PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> > > IMHO, . can DWIM in most cases even if it's both object deref
> > > _and_ concat--without paying any attentio
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 01:03:50AM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:33:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > I think its really time to have a vote on this
>
> Aaargh. I don't. Wouldn't you rather wait and see what Larry is
> planning with all this? I doubt the propos
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 03:33:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> I think its really time to have a vote on this
Aaargh. I don't. Wouldn't you rather wait and see what Larry is
planning with all this? I doubt the proposed changes are gratuitous,
and I think he's got a pretty good track record
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:30:37PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:38:50PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> > IMHO, . can DWIM in most cases even if it's both object deref _and_
> > concat--without paying any attention to whitespace.
>
> Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* thi
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:38:50PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> IMHO, . can DWIM in most cases even if it's both object deref _and_
> concat--without paying any attention to whitespace.
Please, no. Some of us have to *teach* this language.
--
The trouble with computers is that they do what you tel
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:38:50PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
[snip four examples are obvious ...]
>>> $a."b";
If a has a method 'foo' such that
$a.foo
is the standard invocation, it would be nice when $b = 'foo' for
$a.foo === $a."$b" === $a.$b
How I see the . operato
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wh
ispered:
| $a.$b;
| a.$b;
|
| Unless we decide that objects can contain scalars
| and to access them you must prefix their name with $, the middle pair can't
| be object calls, so they're concat.
How about symbolic refs to
19 matches
Mail list logo
