On Thu, 2002-03-28 at 10:19, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Here's what I suggest as a compromise:
>
> macro forall ($iterator, $list, $block) {
> my @ltmp = ($list);
> foreach $iterator -> @ltmp $block
> }
> forall{$var}{@list}{{print;}};
>
> Where the parser sees "macro NAME P
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 19:46, Michel J Lambert wrote:
> > Macros could add something to Perl, but I don't see why having a macro
> > return a string instead of looking and acting like a subroutine would be
> > a bad thing. In fact, as I pointed out before, you can do almost all of
> > the scoping
Aaron Sherman:
> This just brought something to mind when I re-read it. I was thinking
> about how this would transform back into Perl, and I thought... gee, you
> can't do that easily because you're taking the result of a block, and
> Perl can only do that via function call or eval,
Or do, whic
How about we implement some way to peer into coderefs? Maybe just on the
top level, with attributes, or maybe a syntax tree (probably not).
Because here, what both arguments (in the discussion) are missing, is the
ability to look at their arguments' (the uh, ones you pass in) internal
struct
Michel J Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Macros could add something to Perl, but I don't see why having a macro
> > return a string instead of looking and acting like a subroutine would be
> > a bad thing. In fact, as I pointed out before, you can do almost all of
> > the scoping stuff
Basically, one of the goals of Perl6 was to allow for you to implement any
perl construct, in perl. None of the operators were to use any special
features that could not be done by regular subroutines. And personally, I
don't see how we're going to be able to do all this lazy evaluation of
paramet
First impression: Don't go there.
Longer answer:
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 16:29, Michel J Lambert wrote:
> New syntax is 'qs', aka quote sub, which is similar to q, except that it
> interpolates all of: ${..} @{..} and %{..}
> All subroutines which are interpolated, are interpolated as regular text
New syntax is 'qs', aka quote sub, which is similar to q, except that it
interpolates all of: ${..} @{..} and %{..}
All subroutines which are interpolated, are interpolated as regular text,
with no bindings, so that they get lexically scoped in the code they are
returned as part of.
Then macros es
> > An example of where variable capture is needed is:
> > macro println ($a) {
> > return <<"EOF";
> > print $a;
> > print "\n";
> > EOF
> > }
> > for my $b (1..100) {
> > println $b;
> > }
>
> And, if we inline the sub, the only difference will be...?
Okay, a bad example, in that it cou
On Wed, 2002-03-27 at 11:31, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 10:27 AM -0500 3/27/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > macro mygrep ($code is macroblock, *@list) {
> > my @newlist = ();
> > for @list {
> > push @newlist, $_ if $code.();
> > }
> > return @newlist;
> > }
> >
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Just out of curiosity, is there anything macros (in the Lisp sense)
: can do that source filters can't?
Avoid reparsing the language themselves?
Larry
At 10:27 AM -0500 3/27/02, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>I *can* see some advantage in:
>
> macro mygrep ($code is macroblock, *@list) {
> my @newlist = ();
> for @list {
> push @newlist, $_ if $code.();
> }
> return @newlist;
> }
> @x = mygrep {/\S/} $fh.getlin
On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 16:26, Michel J Lambert wrote:
> An example of where variable capture is needed is:
> macro println ($a) {
> return <<"EOF";
> print $a;
> print "\n";
> EOF
> }
> for my $b (1..100) {
> println $b;
> }
Ok, I don't get it. I'm willing to concede that I'm dense, but I
> macro foo($a,$b) {
> return( $c // $a+$b );
> }
>
> print foo(1,2), "\n";
> my $c=100;
> print foo(1,2) "\n";
Yeah, your example provided is correct. It's called variable
capture, and there's some work required by common lisp macros to
ensure that unwanted variable capture does not occur.
14 matches
Mail list logo
