On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 12:44:09PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > This particular modeful behavior is easily handled by most current
> > editors. You have to be able to treat the insides of strings different
> > from the outsides. That being said, ther
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> This particular modeful behavior is easily handled by most current
> editors. You have to be able to treat the insides of strings different
> from the outsides. That being said, there are plenty of other things
> in Perl 6 already that will drive editors
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> > As a related side note, is it possible to use multi-char delimiters in
> > Perl6? I mean, a la:
> >
> > qq<<...>>;
>
> I would worry that you'd be getting "<" and ">" at the beginning and
> end of your string. IMO, there are enough cha
David Green wrote:
I was also going to say something tongue-in-cheek about Unicode quotation
marks, but curly-quotes could actually be quite useful.
Reasons not to use them as anything but synonyms for normal double quotes:
1) They look too much like each-other.
2) They look too much like normal
On 7/21/04, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
>Amen. Please don't steal unnecessary metacharacters in qq()
>strings--although I still think we should keep it, @ causes a lot of
>problems.
That's why my suggestion would be to use a character that already has a
special meaning in double-quoted st
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in strings. I felt that the
> $(...) and @(...) were a much cleaner and more general solution. The
> prospect of backslashing every opening brace in every interpolated
> string is not one I relish.
Maybe we co
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:00:39PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> : On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 19:35, Luke Palmer wrote:
> :
> : > The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
> : > array object with which you're dealing:
> : >
> : > m
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:23:21AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 12:25 (-0700):
: > I'm inclining more towards the "only interpolate things that end with
: > brackets or parens" rule. That would allow $foo.bar() to interpolate,
: > but not $foo.bar.
:
: Anything that is deci
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:33:01PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: But then an interesting point, and one that has already
: been raised, is that it should be somehow possible to customize string
: interpolation bu means of e.g. adverbs (fortunately we don't have "true"
: literal strings but rather
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:12:16PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
: On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:37:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > We allowed/required @foo to interpolate in Perl 5, and it catches a
: > certain number of people off guard regularly, including yours truly.
: > So I can argue [EMAIL PRO
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:16:09AM -0500, Dan Hursh wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >No Yes
: >-- ---
: >@foo@foo[1]
: >%bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
: >$foo.bar$foo.bar()
: >&foo &foo(1)
:
: I may have missed it, but what are the contexts
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 11:59:30AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
:
: Correct me if I'm wrong, but, by analogy with $foo.bar(), ...
:
: > No Yes
: > -- ---
: > @foo@foo[1]
: > %bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
: > $foo.bar$foo.bar()
: >
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:08:24PM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: >> : my $d="a";
: >> : print "--$d--{my $d = "b" }--$d--\n";
: >>
: >> Yes, that is correct.
: >
: > I'm afraid things like th
Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> : my $d="a";
>> : print "--$d--{my $d = "b" }--$d--\n";
>>
>> Yes, that is correct.
>
> I'm afraid things like this will keep many popular editors and IDEs
> from implementing perl6 support...
Then maybe peo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, by analogy with $foo.bar(), ...
> No Yes
> -- ---
> @foo@foo[1]
> %bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
> $foo.bar$foo.bar()
> &foo&foo(1)
@foo@foo.join(" ")
Yes?
/me idly wonders whether map an
Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it seems that there's still a big confusion/indecision about
> the default behaviour. But then an interesting point, and one that
> has already been raised, is that it should be somehow possible to
> customize string interpolation bu means of e.g.
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:37:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> No Yes
> -- ---
> @foo@foo[1]
> %bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
> $foo.bar$foo.bar()
> &foo &foo(1)
>
> In this worldview, $foo is an exception only because it doesn't natural
Larry Wall wrote:
No Yes
-- ---
@foo@foo[1]
%bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
$foo.bar$foo.bar()
&foo&foo(1)
I may have missed it, but what are the contexts in these cases? I'm
thinking the first two are easily scalar. Are the second list
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:37:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> We allowed/required @foo to interpolate in Perl 5, and it catches a
> certain number of people off guard regularly, including yours truly.
> So I can argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] both ways.
Currently @foo[] is a syntax error. maybe "@foo[]"
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Surely you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of 0..Inf
I think the iterator implicit in array slicing should, and could, be
smart enough to return when there's nothing more to iterate. Considering
the following code:
@foo = (1, 2, 3);
@bar = @foo[1..Inf];
@bar should
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
> > am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
[snip]
> I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in strings. I felt that the
> $(...)
Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-07-20 20:06 (-0400):
> This is close to the new form() syntax as well, which could be
> considered a plus. I for one won't complain about adding the good things
> from Ruby back in to Perl.
Ehm, no, that means that if you want to interpolate something into the
format
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : my $d="a";
> : print "--$d--{my $d = "b" }--$d--\n";
>
> Yes, that is correct.
I'm afraid things like this will keep many popular editors and IDEs
from implementing perl6 support...
-- Johan
Larry Wall wrote:
Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
At the moment I'm inclined to say that the *only* interpolators in
double quotes are:
\n, \t etc.
$foo
@foo[$i]
%foo{$k}
{
Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 12:25 (-0700):
> I'm inclining more towards the "only interpolate things that end with
> brackets or parens" rule. That would allow $foo.bar() to interpolate,
> but not $foo.bar.
Anything that is decided by something's end makes things hard to read,
hard to learn and
Two points, if I may jump in here:
(1) If the interpolation rule is to be simple as suggested, why not
impose this rule:
"A character (except for a backslash) is interpreted literally if it
is not preceeded by a backslash."
For example,
"The value is \$foo.bar()." --> "The value is 3."
"T
Uri Guttman writes:
> LW> : so method calls would need the $() or @() wrappers as do all expressions
> LW> : beyond simple scalar value lookup. that means $foo, @foo[0], $foo[0],
> LW> : %foo{'bar'} and $foo{'bar'} all interpolate and only their variants
> LW> : (longer index/key expression
Uri Guttman wrote:
how would you put in the literal string $foo.bar()? escaping the . or
the ( ?
The dollar sign. (Or, if you wanted to interpolate $foo while leaving
the .bar() intact, I would imagine that either \. or \( would suffice.)
--
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl and
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:42:48PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
LW> Many expressions are naturally scalar even in list context. Most
LW> operators force scalar context unless you hyper them. In particular,
LW> the new unary operators
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 11:06:55PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 10:24 (-0700):
: > Interpolates
: > NoYes
: > -----
: > @foo @foo[1]
: > %bar %bar{"a"}
: > $foo.bar $foo.bar()
:
: Oh, please don't do that.
:
: Whatever inte
On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 12:31:08AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: I used $d='b' ,and not $d="b" above, just because it should be $d=\"b\"
: yes, I know, perl5 parser makes several passes on quotes, and when it sees
: open quote, it finds closing quote first, then parses all inside.
: AFAIK, pe
Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-21 10:24 (-0700):
> Interpolates
> NoYes
> -----
> @foo @foo[1]
> %bar %bar{"a"}
> $foo.bar $foo.bar()
Oh, please don't do that.
Whatever interpolation thing is invented, make it SIMPLE. Allowing
@foo[1]
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:21:58 -0700 (PDT), Austin Hastings
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If {...} supplies list context by default, most
intepolations are either the same length or shorter:
$($foo) {$foo}
@(@foo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
$(@foo)
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:39:57PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> > > Larry Wall wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > maybe @fo
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:42:48PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
: and how do you force scalar context without a scalar() or $() wrapper
: around the expression in {}? hard to say whether scalar or list context
: is more popular and so would get the huffman prize. i liked @() and $()
: for both context
Luke Palmer wrote:
I suppose another good thing is that it makes unneccesary the balanced
brace rule in qq{} that was there in Perl 5: all braces need to be
backwhacked now. However, all braces need to be backwhacked now. Ugh.
I was dreading code-generating heredocs, but with the inclusion of
\qq[
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:36:51PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
: > The equivalent regex syntax isn't interpolating, even to the extent that
: > a bare $foo or @bar is, so this would be sort of a "false cognate"--IMHO
: > another reason not to have interpolating {}.
Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> > Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
> > >
> > >
> > maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ?
>
> Surely you mean [EMAIL PROTECTE
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
> >I admit there's a certain interest to Larry's new idea. I've been
> >looking for more distinction between $, @, and % in Perl 6, since they
> >start to become mostly irrelavent. In the new proposal:
> >
> >my @a = (1,2,3,4,5);
> >my
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
:
: >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
: >
: >
: maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ? %foo{..} should also be
: allowed, of course (which
: unfortunately is not a s
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 07:35:08PM +0200, Aldo Calpini wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
> >Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
> >
> >
> maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ?
Surely you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of 0..Inf
> %foo{..} should also b
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 11:00:39PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
: On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 19:35, Luke Palmer wrote:
:
: > The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
: > array object with which you're dealing:
: >
: > my @foo does separator('//') = (1,2,3,4,5);
: > say
Larry Wall wrote:
Hmm. That makes me wonder what the slice notation for "everything" is.
maybe @foo[..] (a short form for @foo[0..Inf]) ? %foo{..} should also be
allowed, of course (which
unfortunately is not a short form for 0..Inf). or perhaps, with a slight
analogy with filesystems, @foo[*
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:13:29PM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 2004-07-21 at 09:42:44, Larry Wall wrote:
: > Plus it ignores the fact that we've already introduced single character
: > scalar context operators that make it trivial to coerce from list
: > context to scalar. If {...} supplies li
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 08:35:10PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: This doesn't quite feel right to me. I was really a big fan of the good
: ol' Perl 6 days where you could interpolate as in Perl 5, and method
: calls required parentheses. I understand why Larry wanted to take out
: the parentheses,
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If {...} supplies list context by default, most
> intepolations are either the same length or shorter:
>
> $($foo) {$foo}
> @(@foo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> $(@foo) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL
On 2004-07-21 at 09:42:44, Larry Wall wrote:
> Plus it ignores the fact that we've already introduced single character
> scalar context operators that make it trivial to coerce from list
> context to scalar. If {...} supplies list context by default, most
> intepolations are either the same length
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 06:25:46AM +0400, Alexey Trofimenko wrote:
: some questions:
:
: 1) is "@a[1][2]{'a'}«b»" interpolateable?
Yes.
: and what about "@a[1]('arg')[3]"?
I can argue that both ways, but overall it seems like it won't cause
much of a problem, and keeps () in the same mental cat
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 09:20:56PM -0400, Damian Conway wrote:
: So what about:
:
: $foo[$i]
: $foo{$k}
:
: ???
Those would work.
: And would slices interpolate?
Yes. Slices are entirely determined by what's in the subscript.
: I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in stri
"Chromatic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Shh, no one's let slip the idea of curried roles yet! I'm not even
> certain A12 mentioned parametric roles, let alone first-class roles.
And with parametric roles, perhaps we also get C roles?
Dave.
"Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Amen. Please don't steal unnecessary metacharacters in qq()
> strings--although I still think we should keep it, @ causes a lot of
> problems.
I seem to recall an issue, last week, of whether adverbs can be a
Luke Palmer wrote:
I admit there's a certain interest to Larry's new idea. I've been
looking for more distinction between $, @, and % in Perl 6, since they
start to become mostly irrelavent. In the new proposal:
my @a = (1,2,3,4,5);
my $a = @a;
say "@a"; # @a
say "$a"; # 1
On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 19:35, Luke Palmer wrote:
> The New Way (tm) to do that would probably be sticking a role onto the
> array object with which you're dealing:
>
> my @foo does separator('//') = (1,2,3,4,5);
> say "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"; # 1//2//3//4//5
Shh, no one's let slip the idea
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:06:40 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >So all of these would require curlies:
> >
> >{foo()}
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >...
>
> ah.. how poorly.. and how sufficient!.. But it's.. it's just not quite
> like in perl5.. But
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:06:40 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
At the moment I'm inclined to say that the *only* interpolators in
double quotes are:
Larry wrote:
Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
At the moment I'm inclined to say that the *only* interpolators in
double quotes are:
\n, \t etc.
$foo
@foo[$i]
%foo{$k}
{EXPR}
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
LW> am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
LW> At the moment I'm inclined to say that the *only* interpolators in
LW> double quotes
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:28:11PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: > My preference is "$file\.ext". Clear, light and ascii.
:
: That's fine as far as it goes, but how do you say what, in Perl 5, I
: would use this for:
:
: "${foo}n"
:
: I like the ${} syntax, but I'm a shell guy from my earl
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:07:48PM -0800, Dew-Jones, Malcolm MSER:EX wrote:
> Lets add an .interpolate method. The parameter(s) are rules that control
> the interpolation, and the returned value is the interpolated string using
> those rules.
>
> $result = 'scalar $vars (only) will be inte
59 matches
Mail list logo
