On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 10:03 PM, John Siracusa wrote:
On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damian Conway writes:
BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
in January, when we spent a week thr
On 10/31/02 5:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Damian Conway writes:
>> BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
>> sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
>> in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
>>
>> Of course, I can't speak for
* Ed Peschko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 07:19]:
[...]
> for @a -> $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw;
> @b -> $b_variable is rw;
> @c -> $c_variable is rw;
> @d -> $d_variable is rw;
> @e -> $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw;
> {
> }
> is much, *much* cle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 1) for @a -> $x ; @b -> $y { ... }
>
> ===>>>
>
> 2) for @a ; @b -> $x ; $y { ... }
You've got it! Semicolon naturally breaks things apart, not groups them
together!
--
Anything to do with HTML processing /usually/ involves a pact
with an evil super
Damian Conway writes:
>
> BTW, Both Larry and I do understand the appeal of interleaving
> sources and iterators. We did consider it at some length back
> in January, when we spent a week thrashing this syntax out.
>
> Of course, I can't speak for Larry, but in the end I concluded
> that i
Ed Peschko wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
I think decent formatting would make it clearer:
for@a; @b
-> $x is rw; y {
$x = $y[5];
}
But this isn't very scalable:
Sure it is. You just have to think more two-dimensionally...
for @a; @b; @c; @d; @e
-> $a_variabl
Larry Wall writes:
> I think decent formatting would make it clearer:
>
> for@a; @b
> -> $x is rw; y {
>$x = $y[5];
> }
But this isn't very scalable:
for@a; @b;
@c; @d;
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > *shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
> > stands: "is rw" is too long for something we're going to do fairly often.
>
> I am not so sure. If I look back through
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Storrs) writes:
> minimal exception to remember
Another one for my irregularity check, thanks! :)
--
"Though spring is here, to me it's still September,
That September, in the rain"
- Dinah Washington, The USENET Anthem.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 01:57:00PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
> *shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
> stands: "is rw" is too long for something we're going to do fairly often.
I am not so sure. If I look back through a lot of my code, there are more cases
where I use
Dave Storrs writes:
>
>
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
>
> > Then let's make the parens required when there is more than one
> > stream.
> >
> > Sane people will put them there anyway, and it will force the rest of
> > us to behave.
> >
> > It also solves the ";"-not-a-line-
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
> Then let's make the parens required when there is more than one
> stream.
>
> Sane people will put them there anyway, and it will force the rest of
> us to behave.
>
> It also solves the ";"-not-a-line-seperator problem.
>
> -angel
Yes! Thank y
Wednesday 30 October 2002 22:08, Michael Lazzaro escribió:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
>
> I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be
> solved if the above were just written:
>
> for
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Damian Conway wrote:
> Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> > Actually, yes, that would solve everything for me...and I knew
> > this was valid syntax.
>
> So is this vertical layout, which I think will become fairly standard
> amongst those who care about readability:
>
> for @
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
: > for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
:
: I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
: if the above were just written:
:
: for (@a;@b) -> (
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
>
> --- Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > for @a -> $x<; @b -> $y { $x = $y[5] };
>
> Yes!!!
>
> (Except for the '<'. That's feigen-ugly.
*shrug* You may not like the aesthetics, but my point still
stands: "is rw" is too long for
Dave Storrs wrote:
for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
if the above were just written:
for (@a;@b) -> ($x is rw; $y) { $x = $y[5] };
Would that suffice to make it clearer?
Actually, yes, that would solve everyt
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
>
> I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
> if the above were just written:
>
> for (@a;@b) -> (
Michael Lazzaro writes:
>
> On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
> >for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
>
> I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
> if the above were just written:
>
> for (@a;@b) -> ($x is rw; $
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:48 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
for @a; @b -> $x is rw; $y { $x = $y[5] };
I agree that it's an eyeful. How many of your issues could be solved
if the above were just written:
for (@a;@b) -> ($x is rw; $y) { $x = $y[5] };
Would that suffice to make it cle
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:48:21PM -0800, Dave Storrs wrote:
> Current: for @a; @b -> $x is rw, $y; $z { ...stuff... };
>
> The above (IIUC) means "loop over @a, pulling out two elements at a time
> and aliasing them to $x (which is rw) and $y (which is r).
> Simultaneously loop over @b, alia
--- Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> for @a -> $x<; @b -> $y { $x = $y[5] };
Yes!!!
(Except for the '<'. That's feigen-ugly. I'll say "is r?" where needed,
regardless of which is the default. I prefer default=ro, though,
because that let's the optimizer do more by default.)
I proposed
22 matches
Mail list logo
