On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 02:05:16PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
> >From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
>
> "In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
> gives you no opportunity to go back and change your mind later to using
> getters and setter
On 2004-12-03 at 14:46:16, John Siracusa wrote:
> Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of "forward
> compatibility" for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
> like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
> getters and setters... :)
Amen.
John Siracusa writes:
> I guess I wasn't asking if it would be "possible" (I think that's been
> established), but if it would be "easy", "reasonable", or "clean" (as
> it appears to be in Python, although I'm just going by what the quoted
> web page says). I recall some discussions about the "bes
On Fri, Dec 03, 2004 at 04:13:01PM -0500, John Siracusa wrote:
: On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576
:
: Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still
: valid... :)
Almost all
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:06:43 +0100, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl6.language/9576
Wow, that's a blast from the past. I wonder how much of it is still
valid... :)
-John
Juerd skribis 2004-12-03 21:09 (+0100):
> $foo.bar .= "foo"
Meant ~= there.
Juerd
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:46 (-0500):
> Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see the ease of "forward
> compatibility" for simple attributes touted as a feature of Python. I'd
> like to tout it as a feature of Perl 6 too, because I also hate writing
> getters and setters... :)
Of cou
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 20:37:40 +0100, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500):
>> From http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
>>
>> "In Java, you have to use getters and setters because using public fields
>> gives you no opportunity to go back
John Siracusa skribis 2004-12-03 14:05 (-0500):
> I'd like to be able to s/Python/Perl 6/ above, but after many discussions on
> this topic, I'm still not sure if I can.
Anything can be anything. I'm sure that despite the ability to run all
the code you want upon reading/writing an attribute, some
David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Perl is far more practical than experimental.
> Not at the moment. That's the problem.
Pretty much everything proposed, even in the wildest RFCs during the
brainstorming phase, was still stuff that's been done elsewhere by other
languages. That's the
> Perl is far more practical than experimental.
Not at the moment. That's the problem.
(Note the subtle subject change back to its original intent.)
p
Vijay Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I always expected Perl to be leading the way, *the* language that broke
> new ground..."where only camels dared to tread..."
Er... that strikes me as a strange expectation. I can't think of much in
Perl that hasn't appeared elsewhere earlier. Perl make
> Perl is looking a bit shaky at the moment.
Yeah. I think I understand what you mean by "shaky".
I always expected Perl to be leading the way, *the* language
that broke new ground..."where only camels dared to tread..."
Now we find that Perl6 is just huffin' and puffin' its way
to *catch up*
> -Original Message-
> From: Vijay Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Python...
>
>
>
> Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
>
> I thought you
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:48:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Oh, hrm. I wonder if I could use the functions from the Ruby runtime
> > as custom ops.
>
> You are a very bad man. Go to it.
I would do, but I'm getting segfaults when I reimplement op.c in Perl.
Unfortunately, I'm not joking.
-
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
> > libraries (in annoying C) yet.
>
> Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
> subrout
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 09:42:37PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Apart from the minor issue of Leon not having ported all the runtime
> libraries (in annoying C) yet.
Because I'm hacking at the bytecode level, I can replace the relevant
subroutine calls to Perl builtins.
Oh, hrm. I wonder if I co
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
> > I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
> >
> > BTW - There's a Ruby "Inline::Perl" module in alpha testing
> > now...this will be a nice complement to the "Inline::Python"
> > mod
On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 02:02:03AM +, Vijay Singh wrote:
> I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
>
> BTW - There's a Ruby "Inline::Perl" module in alpha
> testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
> "Inline::Python" module already available...
And today I put the finishin
Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
BTW - There's a Ruby "Inline::Perl" module in alpha
testing now...this will be a nice complement to the
"Inline::Python" module already available...
Must dash - Vijay
--
__
20 matches
Mail list logo
