Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH allbery-at-ece.cmu.edu |Perl 6| wrote:
⨷ perhaps? It only makes sense that a Unicode operator be used to
pull in all of Unicode.
Bravo.
If you can't type that, you won't find it useful!
On May 30, 2009, at 15:38 , Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps something like
use *;
should pull in all the Unicode operators. Which if course means that
any golfing would start with
*;
⨷ perhaps? It only makes sense that a Unicode operator be used to
pull in all of Unicode.
--
brandon s
On May 29, 2009, at 22:33 , Jon Lang wrote:
"also" is an ordered, short-circuiting version of "&" (and thus
"all"). For some time now, I've wanted an analog for '|' and 'any' -
but the only name I can think of for it would be 'else', which has
some obvious clarity issues.
I have seen "x (alt.
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Indeed, getting "close enough" is one of the underlying design themes
of Perl 6. As to whether we're close to do the operator aliasing in
a mostly digraphic fashion, I'm not sure. Currently a macro for an
infix would be given the AST of the left argu
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 04:50:02PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
> Note that ≥ and ≤ are "bidi mirroring" characters in the Unicode
> Properties. So if someone were crazy enough to use them as brackets,
> then the digraph equivalent should work as well, right?
No, they'd only function as digr
David Green david.green-at-telus.net |Perl 6| wrote:
On 2009-May-29, at 7:53 pm, Darren Duncan wrote:
Thirdly, there are I'm sure a number of other aliases that could be
added to other ops, such as ≤ and ≥ for <= and >=, and ≠ for one of
the inequality operators, although that last one would pr
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:09:01PM -0600, David Green wrote:
> I think that one's ambiguous as to whether $bar exists as a key or a
> value.
>
> $bar ∈ @foo; $bar ∈ %foo.keys; $bar ∈ %foo.values; ∃ %foo{bar}
Generally when hashes have been used as sets we've taken the keys
to be the set, not th
It occurs to me that, while I don't want to pull in all the
possible Unicode operators by default, we should make it easy
to do so. Perhaps something like
use *;
should pull in all the Unicode operators. Which if course means that
any golfing would start with
*;
to pull in all the pos
On 2009-May-29, at 7:53 pm, Darren Duncan wrote:
Thirdly, there are I'm sure a number of other aliases that could be
added to other ops, such as ≤ and ≥ for <= and >=, and ≠ for
one of the inequality operators, although that last one would
probably make more sense if = was the equality test
John M. Dlugosz said [off-list]:
> Darren Duncan darren-at-darrenduncan.net |Perl 6| wrote:
>> I also know that
>> given its current design, === and !=== just happen to have the same
>> semantics as logical xnor and xor when given 2 Bool inputs, and so
>> they serve the purpose. Having distinct xn
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 08:45:06PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> So does anyone else have thoughts on that?
Actually, I think ~x is kinda ugly. And I like the mnemonic value of
x returning one thing and xx returning multiple things. And in the
bitwise ops ~ doesn't indicate postprocessing. And
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:06:46PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Larry, did you choose = for assignment and == etc for comparison because
> you thought that looked prettier, or because that was the C/etc
> convention that you decided to copy?
Neither beauty nor convention, really. I chose it fo
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Your nomenclature makes me think you are coming from an APL background.
Actually, I've never used APL.
The main influences for the terminology I use, besides Perl which is my favorite
general purpose language, is the field of relational databases, both the SQL
language
Thoughts:
Your nomenclature makes me think you are coming from an APL background.
!=== is already generated from ===, and compares the identity of any two
objects. It works on binary values since they are value types, but
that's not the "proper" usage, and Perl separates out the concerns.
S
Darren (>):
> Firstly, regarding the string replication ops as documented in Synopsis 3,
> 'x' and 'xx', I'm wondering whether it might be better to have something
> that incorporates a '~', since that operation is about catenation.
>
> Would perhaps '~*' work better than 'x' to signify better what
Buddha Buck wrote:
Secondly, regarding the Bool type, I think it would be useful for Perl 6 to
define the full complement of dyadic logical operators, of which I count a
few that you don't appear to already have. Probably the best place is in
Synopsis 32.
There are 16 dyadic logical operators,
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Darren Duncan wrote:
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
How about if xx became x, and then we did things like:
[~] @list x $count
...to get the string replciation?
Maybe you meant this?
[~] $item x $count
No, I'm pretty sure I meant what I wrote. But if x coerce
Darren Duncan wrote:
>> Side note: one thing that I recently learned concerning implication
>> operators is that the direction of the implication doesn't necessarily
>> follow the direction of the arrow. In particular, "A if B" is "A←B",
>> and "A only if B" is "A→B": in both of the original state
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
How about if xx became x, and then we did things like:
[~] @list x $count
...to get the string replciation?
Maybe you meant this?
[~] $item x $count
I like that a lot.
And we could still have ~x as a shorthand for that specific case since it would
li
Jon Lang wrote:
I wouldn't mind 'x' becoming '~x' and 'xx' becoming 'x'; it strikes me
as a lot more intuitive - and I've wanted to see this done for a while
now. I suppose that you might also introduce a '?x' and/or a '+x' to
complete the set, though for the life of me I can't think of how
they
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jon Lang wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
I had some thoughts lately about the Perl 6 operators, and wanted to bounce
some ideas.
Firstly, regarding the string replication ops as documented in Synopsis 3,
'x' and 'xx', I'm wondering w
21 matches
Mail list logo
