HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
The whitespace proposal is essentially to
require whitespace between any operator any following pair if the
pair is intended to be a noun and not an adverb.
So, then my log:base(2) would still look for the positional argument,
right?
Alternately, we could force eve
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 06:15:07PM +0200, TSa wrote:
>> Do you write
>>
>> $a lt:lc $b le:lc $c
>
> I think that works and looks best. My favorite hope is that
>
>$x = log:2 $y;
>
> flies, as well.
>
>$x = log:base(2) $y;
>
> is a bit lengthy and
>
>$x = log $y, :base(2);
>
> looks
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
So do they have to go at the end of the whole expression in the current
grammar? I don't follow about the spaces.
The problem is term versus operator parsing.
Do you write
$a lt:lc $b le:lc $c
I think that works and looks best. My favorite hope is that
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
> As for
> marking each op individually, it might be possible if we add a
> whitespace dependency between "lt:lc" and "lt :lc", but 1 ..:by(2) 100
> is pretty ugly.
>
> Larry
So do they have to go at the end of the whole expression in the current gram
Larry Wall wrote:
> You might have to write that
>
>@list ==> $foo.act :bar('baz');
>
> I think or the colon on the method would be taken as starting a list.
> I dunno, depends on whether .act: is considered a "longest token",
> I guess. I could argue it the other way as well, and :bar is a lo
One other point:
act $foo, @list, bar => 'baz';
is actually the same as:
act($foo, @list, bar => 'baz');
which might or might not dispatch to a method on $foo,
depending on whether (and how) &act is defined.
Jonathan probably meant:
act $foo: @list, bar => 'baz';
for the indirec
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:30:04PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: > Jonathan Lang wrote:
: > : How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
: > : accessing them?
: >
: > Adverbs are just optional named parameters. Most of the magic is in
: > the call syntax.
Larry Wall wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
> : accessing them?
>
> Adverbs are just optional named parameters. Most of the magic is in
> the call syntax.
Ah. So every part of a Capture Object has an alternate call syntax:
act
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 06:58:04PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: How do you define new adverbs, and how does a subroutine go about
: accessing them?
Adverbs are just optional named parameters. Most of the magic is in
the call syntax.
Larry
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 06:12:06PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Larry Wall writes:
: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: > :
: > :say .meth :foo;# say( .meth( foo=>1 ) )
: >
: > That one works.
:
: But that's because :foo is an adverb to .meth, not because .m
Larry Wall writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> :
> :say .meth :foo;# say( .meth( foo=>1 ) )
>
> That one works.
But that's because :foo is an adverb to .meth, not because .meth is
taking an argument 'foo' => 1, right?
> Likewise
>
> sqrt($x):bo
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:18:55PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Only a sig of () makes it *not* look for an argument as a list operator.
That's overstated. Only a sig of () or ($x) or (?$x) suppresses
list operator-ness on ordinary function names.
Larry
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:15:43PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: Adverbs are confusing me mightily lately.
:
: It may be that Larry's A12 revision just needs a few examples
: *with* parenthesis to straighten me out.
:
: Here are some semi-coherent attempts to sort it out
: in my mind. Please cor
13 matches
Mail list logo
