Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
>
> > It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6.
>
> It says that, but after saying "Leaving aside the use of C<``> as a
> term ...". And that use of backticks is what this subth
Juerd writes:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20040420175551.GA16162%40wall.org&rnum=1clarify
> >
> > It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6. That's (the) one
> >
Luke Palmer skribis 2004-11-29 16:10 (-0700):
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20040420175551.GA16162%40wall.org&rnum=1clarify
>
> It says that backticks won't be used at all in Perl 6. That's (the) one
> key of the keyboard that we're leaving to u
n-used one at that... I'm fine with axing it. Of course,
> >> there are a lot more people in the world then just me.
> >
> > I'm fine with it too. I use it a fair bit but I think it's important
> > to have a very clear mark where you're going to an exte
there are a lot more people in the world then just me.
>
> I'm fine with it too. I use it a fair bit but I think it's important
> to have a very clear mark where you're going to an external program
Not when you're writing a quick one-liner. Maybe stdout capturing
back
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 03:37:23PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
What about "$x\n"? The backslash already has meaning in strings
I use hash elements far more often outside than inside strings, so I could
live with having to write $x«foo» for interpolated hash elements.
Anyway, you're missing the
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 09:19:12PM +0200, Matthijs van Duin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:02:15PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > macro infix:\ ($cont, $key)
> > is parsed(/$?key := (-?\w* | \d+)/)
> > {
> > if $key ~~ /^\d+$/ {
> > "($cont).[$key]";
> > }
> >
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:02:15PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
macro infix:\ ($cont, $key)
is parsed(/$?key := (-?\w* | \d+)/)
{
if $key ~~ /^\d+$/ {
"($cont).[$key]";
}
else {
"($cont).«$key»";
}
}
That does all the magic at compile t
Matthijs van Duin writes:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:55:51AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> >The flip side is that, since we won't use C<`> as an operator in Perl
> >6, you're free to use it to introduce any user-defined operators
> >you like, including a bare C<`>. All is fair if you predeclare.
>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:55:51AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
The flip side is that, since we won't use C<`> as an operator in Perl
6, you're free to use it to introduce any user-defined operators
you like, including a bare C<`>. All is fair if you predeclare.
Most languages won't even give you that
Okay, let's put this one to rest. I've suspended judgement long enough.
Let me first say that I have my own personal biases, and they are
towards keeping things visually and psychologically distinctive,
rather than towards reducing keystrokes. (Though I have enough
arthritis in my hands to at le
Juerd writes:
> Peter Haworth skribis 2004-04-20 14:56 (+0100):
> > > I think %hash<> is best explained as %hash{ << key key
> > > key >> } with implicit curlies, not as an alternative to curlies.
> > In that case, why aren't you suggesting something more in line with that?
> > Here's what I'd lik
Peter Haworth skribis 2004-04-20 14:56 (+0100):
> > I think %hash<> is best explained as %hash{ << key key
> > key >> } with implicit curlies, not as an alternative to curlies.
> In that case, why aren't you suggesting something more in line with that?
> Here's what I'd like to see instead of your
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:45:48 +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-16 15:51 (-0500):
> > Except that you've put things in this explanation that shouldn't be
> > there IMHO. The %varname<> is a special case, but not of "getting a
> > single item from a hash", rather it's a specia
Since this horse came back to life, I'm going to give it a good thrashing, and
I've got goons to help me.
I've asked the Phoenix Perl Mongers for their take on the situation. I've posted
a _completely_ unbiased synopsis of the situation. Here are excerpts from the replies:
Tony's take:
"Rename
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> I'm saying "division" is now defined such that when the numerator is
> a hash(-ref), the result is the set of values associated with the
> denominator. I've never tried to divide a hash or hashref by
> something without it being a bug.
Right...in Perl 5.
In Perl 6, a hash
Sean O'Rourke skribis 2004-04-19 15:34 (-0700):
> I'm saying "division" is now defined such that when the numerator is
> a hash(-ref), the result is the set of values associated with the
> denominator. I've never tried to divide a hash or hashref by
> something without it being a bug.
I understan
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:34:13PM -0700, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
in a '/' is a regex, anything otherwise is a hash slice.
I don't understand. Could you give some examples? Is this in the context
of bare /path/to/foo, even?
/foo/ # trailing slash -- so it's a regexp (m/foo/)
/foo\/bar/ #
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> Sean O'Rourke skribis 2004-04-19 15:11 (-0700):
>> > I'd hate to give up dividing slash. It's one of the few operators that I
>> > sometimes type without whitespace. Simple because 1/10 is good enough
>> > and 1 / 10 is very wide.
>> You can have both, though.
>
Sean O'Rourke skribis 2004-04-19 15:11 (-0700):
> > I'd hate to give up dividing slash. It's one of the few operators that I
> > sometimes type without whitespace. Simple because 1/10 is good enough
> > and 1 / 10 is very wide.
> You can have both, though.
But not in a way that makes $foo/$bar div
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> Angel Faus skribis 2004-04-19 22:43 (+0200):
>> If we really need a ultra-huffman encoding for hash subscriptors, I
>> have always dreamt of being able to do:
>> %hash/key
>> $hashref/foo/bar/baz/quux
>> ...
>
> I'd hate to give up dividing slash. It's on
Angel Faus skribis 2004-04-19 22:43 (+0200):
> If we really need a ultra-huffman encoding for hash subscriptors, I
> have always dreamt of being able to do:
> %hash/key
> $hashref/foo/bar/baz/quux
> ...
I'd hate to give up dividing slash. It's one of the few operators that I
sometimes type
Miércoles 14 Abril 2004 14:18, Juerd wrote:
> I propose to use ` as a simple hash subscriptor, as an alternative
> to {} and <<>>. It would only be useable for \w+ keys or perhaps
> -?\w+. As with methods, a simple "atomic" (term exists only in
> perlreftut, afaix, but I don't know another word to
Trey Harris skribis 2004-04-16 12:05 (-0700):
> I'm asking you to stop interpreting disagreement as censorship, prejudice,
> closed-mindedness, or whatever else. It's not.
I never did interpret disagreement as anything but disagreement, and
never said that I think everyone who disagrees is closed
dea a fair hearing and make a good decision...and I know
that I'll be glad if, tomorrow, I *don't* have 30 mails in my box about
backticks. :>
--Dks
In a message dated Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Juerd writes:
> Except for the shocking number of closed-minded people on this list.
Stop it, stop it, STOP IT.
I'm not asking you to stop voicing your opinion about the discussion at
hand--that would be closed-minded, after all.
I'm asking you to stop interp
John Williams skribis 2004-04-16 18:32 (-0600):
> You didn't answer his question, "which is less complicated?"
Wasn't that a rhetociral question?
Juerd
;t bother me in
the slightest. And as has been said, there's a vast amount of one-liners
and short utility scripts out there which use backticks quite happily
and safely. As with many things, they're only dangerous if you don't
know what you're doing.
Probably you know whe
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Juerd wrote:
> Defining ` to be a bareword quoting operator would be only one step away
> from what I suggested initially:
>
> 1. %hash`key
> 2. %array`5
> 3. :key`value
>
> 4. say `hello;
>
> This would make it like <<>> now, but allowing only one bareword, and
> only if it is
Jonathan Scott Duff skribis 2004-04-16 15:51 (-0500):
> > To get an item out of a hash, you can write %varname{"key"}.
> > You can also write %varname<> if there aren't any spaces in
> > the key. Finally, if the key doesn't have any characters in it
> > except for letters, numbers
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 03:12:58PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 12:35, Juerd wrote:
>
> > backticks encourage interpolation.
>
> ... and?
>
> >From the point of view of a Web developer who deals with (potentially)
> hostile data, I see the p
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 09:16:15PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> However, I could be guessing badly. It could be that someone who says
> Perl 6 should not have a third syntax because there are already two
> really has thought about it. We have many ways of saying "foo() if not
> $bar" in Perl 5 and I use m
d is as globally useful
> as possible. The form of backticks you're proposing are good for only
> one thing: indexing hashes (and possibly arrays). Clever definition of
> the colon operator, or creation of a bareword-quoting operator, would
> allow you to use "barewor
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 12:35, Juerd wrote:
> backticks encourage interpolation.
... and?
>From the point of view of a Web developer who deals with (potentially)
hostile data, I see the problem (though the solution is smarter
tainting, not removing functionality). From the point of vie
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-04-16 13:17 (-0700):
> Clever definition of the colon operator, or creation of a
> bareword-quoting operator, would allow you to use "barewords" anywhere
> you wanted to.
Defining ` to be a bareword quoting operator would be only one step away
from what I sugg
the syntax we already have, not add more. Failing
that, we should make sure that the syntax we add is as globally useful
as possible. The form of backticks you're proposing are good for only
one thing: indexing hashes (and possibly arrays). Clever definition of
the colon operator, or creat
Larry Wall skribis 2004-04-16 11:50 (-0700):
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:12:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> : Except for the shocking number of closed-minded people on this list.
> You seem to be one of them. From my point of view, you've had your
> ego plastered all over this proposal from the start,
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 07:12:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-16 9:52 (-0400):
3. You proposed (late in the conversation) that both could co-exist, and
while that's true from a compiler point of view, it also leads to:
`stuff``stuff`stuff
Huh? No. That is a syntax er
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 10:44:47AM -0700, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Regex aliases, threads, lexicals, junctions, and dwimmery make things a
> *lot* easier to program. This syntactic sugar you're proposing doesn't.
But it *does* make an oft-used construct easier to type. That adds up
ov
David Wheeler skribis 2004-04-16 7:56 (-0700):
> And I'll bet it's something like this:
> for my $i (0..$#thingies) {
> my $css_class = $i % 2 ? 'blue' : 'yellow';
> print "$thingies[$i]\n";
> }
Probably.
Can't we in Perl 6 just use something like this?
for @thingies, qw(bl
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-16 9:52 (-0400):
> 3. You proposed (late in the conversation) that both could co-exist, and
> while that's true from a compiler point of view, it also leads to:
> `stuff``stuff`stuff
Huh? No. That is a syntax error.
> $a`a=$a`b~`a` # Try to tell your edi
David Wheeler skribis 2004-04-16 9:58 (-0700):
> >for @thingies, qw(blue yellow) xx Inf -> $thingy, $class {
> >print qq[$thingy\n";
> >}
> I think that $class would be C after the second record in
> @thingies, unfortunately.
Even with the "xx Inf"? Why?
Juerd
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-04-16 0:25 (-0700):
> Number of keystrokes isn't our only concern here. This is Perl, not
> APL--we care about the size of the language and its intuitiveness too.
> (Perhaps not much, but we do.)
Not the only concern, but to me, it is as important as reada
and easier to
> simply shell out and collect the output. I don't see "purity" as a
> good motive here; in fact, rigid purity makes languages like Java and
> Smalltalk somewhere between frustrating and useless.
Yes, executing programs should still be easy. But it doesn
Juerd wrote:
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-04-16 0:25 (-0700):
I don't like %hash{'foo'} because it's ugly. I don't like %hash<>
because it's ugly and adds syntax. I don't like %hash`foo because it's
ugly, adds syntax, and looks nothing like an indexing operator. (I'll
revisit this t
On Apr 16, 2004, at 10:14 AM, Juerd wrote:
Even with the "xx Inf"? Why?
Oh, right, missed that. Sorry.
David
On 2004-04-16 at 08:50:38, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Mark J. Reed wrote:
> >Nope. I'd be perfectly happy if the modulus operator were spelled "mod"
> >instead of %, which has never struck me as particularly intuitive.
>
> I always saw it as being a funny division sign. See the little s
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark J. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 16 April, 2004 11:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: backticks
>
>
> On 2004-04-16 at 11:17:41, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > I'm totally willing to agree w
Mark J. Reed wrote:
Nope. I'd be perfectly happy if the modulus operator were spelled "mod"
instead of %, which has never struck me as particularly intuitive.
I always saw it as being a funny division sign. See the little slash in
there?
--
Brent "Dax" Royal-Gordon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perl an
On 2004-04-16 at 11:17:41, Austin Hastings wrote:
> I'm totally willing to agree with you, Mark.
> A) Do you code hashing algorithms so frequently that you need a special,
> low-cost-of-access operator built in to the language to support it?
Nope. I'd be perfectly happy if the modulus operator w
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 10:56, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > I'll bet you the actual most *common* use of modulus is:
[...]
> > print $percent_done,"\n" unless $percent_done % 10;
> And I'll bet it's something like this:
> my $css_class =
> -Original Message-
> From: David Wheeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Apr 16, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > I'll bet you the actual most *common* use of modulus is:
> >
> > until ( my ($percent_done=done()) == 100 ) {
> > do_work();
> > print $perce
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark J. Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 2004-04-15 at 19:39:25, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Of course you used for buffers that were not powers of 2. Had they
> > been powers of 2, you would have used & or &~. The fact that you
> > didn't use a power of 2
On Apr 16, 2004, at 7:19 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
I'll bet you the actual most *common* use of modulus is:
until ( my ($percent_done=done()) == 100 ) {
do_work();
print $percent_done,"\n" unless $percent_done % 10;
}
And I'll bet it's something like this:
for my $i (0..$#t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark J. Reed) writes:
> > The biggest use of modulus is in implementing hashes
>
> Rather, one of the biggest uses. I don't have documentation to support
> the claim that it is the biggest, and there are certainly others -
> date arithmetic, astronomy etc.
I'll bet you the ac
On 2004-04-16 at 09:23:44, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 2004-04-15 at 19:39:25, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > Of course you used for buffers that were not powers of 2. Had they
> > been powers of 2, you would have used & or &~. The fact that you
> > didn't use a power of 2 is pretty questionable. The dr
On 2004-04-16 at 00:25:51, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Number of keystrokes isn't our only concern here. This is Perl, not
> APL--we care about the size of the language and its intuitiveness too.
> (Perhaps not much, but we do.)
In any case, Perl is far more typable than APL unless you ha
On 2004-04-15 at 19:39:25, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Of course you used for buffers that were not powers of 2. Had they
> been powers of 2, you would have used & or &~. The fact that you
> didn't use a power of 2 is pretty questionable. The dread Unix
> wizards will no doubt have questions for you
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 19:37 (-0400):
> I'm sure that if Juerd or someone were to write a "PublicHash" class,
> they would cleverly reverse the access so that some collision-unlikely
> path would get the methods.
I'm sure I have explained several times already why I think using the .
o
urns the
>next \w+ into a string) and use the normal hash indexer, {}. I have
> no suggestion for this operator's name, although if you wanted to rip
>out the current unary backticks, it could be a candidate:
>%hash{`key}.
Same as 3, but with another character.
Juerd
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:27:12PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
> * Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hash<>)
> the proposal is being rejected out of hand (incidentally, the mantra of the Java
> community Process seems to be "you don't need X, you've got Y", and it took
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juerd) writes:
> I think it has to go because `pwd`, `hostname`, `wget -O - $url`
> should not be easier than the purer Perl equivalents and because
> ``'s interpolation does more harm than good.
I have to disagree with you here. The Perl way is not always the Perl
way -- the b
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
> "If the inside of a hash indexer consists entirely of \w characters, it
> will be interpreted as the name of a hash key. If you want it to call a
> subroutine instead, add a ~ stringifying operator to the beginning of
> the call, or a pair of parentheses to th
orth anything in
practice.
It looks better to me and doesn't add any syntax.
4. Define a bareword-quoting prefix operator (i.e. one that turns the
next \w+ into a string) and use the normal hash indexer, {}. I have
no suggestion for this operator's name, although if you wanted to rip
Austin Hastings writes:
> If you think about it, what we really ought to do is train ourselves
> to "reverse" the numbers row on our keyboards. If we're doing a good
> job about avoiding magic numbers, then " $ % & ( ) are going
> to be much more frequently used than 2 4 5 7 9 0, so why don't we
>
pair.key>.)
4. Define a bareword-quoting prefix operator (i.e. one that turns the
next \w+ into a string) and use the normal hash indexer, {}. I have
no suggestion for this operator's name, although if you wanted to rip
out the current unary backticks, it could be a candidate:
> -Original Message-
> From: Jonathan Scott Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:38:34PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > The use of % as a modulo operator is purely a legacy from 'C',
> > where it was a failure: in 'C', the only number you care about
> > for
> -Original Message-
> From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Austin Hastings writes:
> > > From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> > > > $foo % bar
> > >
> > > " % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
> > >
Austin Hastings writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> > > $foo % bar
> >
> > " % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
> >
> > Typability and readability are both VERY important.
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> > $foo % bar
>
> " % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
>
> Typability and readability are both VERY important.
In that case, why not define a Class::H
Ack - well, I was downright antagonistic, so I really earned it.
I can only try to accept criticism as well as the rest of the list has.
Apology accepted of course, and an apology of my own to the list who had to
suffer me and chromatic who didn't take me too seriously ;)
-scott
On 0, chroma
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 06:38:34PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> The use of % as a modulo operator is purely a legacy from 'C', where it was
> a failure: in 'C', the only number you care about for modulus is some power
> of 2, and you get those using bitwise-and anyway.
I disagree with this comp
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:38 (-0400):
> $foo % bar
" % " is 4 keys: space, shift, 5, space. Too much, IMHO.
Typability and readability are both VERY important.
Juerd
s, rx, tr
> After all, the only real point of having qx[], qx(), qx{}, qx//, et.
> al. is so you can get the effect of `...` without having to quote your
> backticks.
I see it the other way around: '' is a way of getting q// without the q,
"" is a way of getting qq// wi
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthijs van Duin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> >%foo is a hash. When I see %foo%bar, it feels like that should be a hash
> >too. Besides that, $foo%bar looks funny and @[EMAIL PROTECTED] does so even mor
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 12:14:08AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
%foo is a hash. When I see %foo%bar, it feels like that should be a hash
too. Besides that, $foo%bar looks funny and @[EMAIL PROTECTED] does so even more.
Not to mention @[EMAIL PROTECTED] I like ` because it's a small but
recognisable glyph. (
on of being the only
"quote-like operator" that doesn't have a corresponding quote-like
syntax. After all, the only real point of having qx[], qx(), qx{}, qx//,
et. al. is so you can get the effect of `...` without having to quote
your backticks.
Well, maybe that's not th
Austin Hastings skribis 2004-04-15 18:09 (-0400):
> If we're going to entertain alternatives, why not use % as the hash
> subscriptor?
> To borrow from another thread:
> %foo%monday%food = 10;
> %foo%monday%travel = 100;
> %foo%tuesday%food = 10;
> %foo%tuesday%travel = 150;
There is as fa
> -Original Message-
> From: Juerd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 05:09 PM
> To: Dave Mitchell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: backticks
>
>
> Dave Mitchell skribis 2004-04-15 21:56 (+0100):
> > If hypothetically w
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> David Storrs skribis 2004-04-14 22:39 (-0700):
> > Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
> > (This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
>
> That is inconvenient.
Yup.
> > 1) ` looks like it should b
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 13:37, Larry Wall wrote:
> Well, I, for one, think chromatic was right on the money.
No matter how right my thoughts might have been, my tone *was* rude and
that's not right. Apologies to Scott.
-- c
Dave Mitchell skribis 2004-04-15 21:56 (+0100):
> If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index hash
> access syntax, is there any reason why we can't use a single quote (')
> rather than backtick ('), akin to the Perl4-ish package separator,
> ie %foo'bar rather than %foo`bar
Mark J. Reed skribis 2004-04-15 16:49 (-0400):
> If I might offer a modest counter-proposal - how about a fallback method
> (the equivalent of Perl5's AUTOLOAD or Ruby's method_missing, however
> that winds up being spelled in Perl6) that would return the value of the
> key equal to the requested m
On 2004-04-15 at 16:49:28, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Not sure that JavaScript is relevant here, since the "equivalent"
> syntax there, ".", is the same as the method call syntax. But see my
> proposal below.
Before the nit-pickers jump in, I was oversimplifying above. The
"method call syntax" in Jav
If hypothetically we *are* going to have a simplfied constant-index hash
access syntax, is there any reason why we can't use a single quote (')
rather than backtick ('), akin to the Perl4-ish package separator,
ie %foo'bar rather than %foo`bar?
On the grounds that personally I hate the backtick
Scott> * %hash`s is an example of a small thing that would be easy to implement
Scott> in core but would be used constantly (if JavaScript is any indication,
Scott> every few lines), giving a lot of bang for the buck
Not sure that JavaScript is relevant here, since the "equivalent"
syntax there
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 01:26:47PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
: So, my apologies to who anyone who feels unfairly or excessively criticized,
: except chromatic. There is no forgiveness for someone who seeks out irked people
: with the single goal of further irking them. Since chromatic is so eager
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, 15 April, 2004 03:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Juerd
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: backticks
>
>
> Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn&
It's you.
* My objection to the Java community process applies in _some_ _small_
part to the Perl community process. I present it as a negative ideal
with the implication that it should be avoided.
* My objection to it being rejected out of hand applies not to the Perl community
process no
On Thu, Apr 15, 2004 at 12:27:12PM -0700, Scott Walters wrote:
Let me summerize my undestanding of this (if my bozo bit isn't already
irrevocably set):
* %hash<> retains the features of P5 $hash{foo} but does nothing to
counter the damage of removal of barewords
Actually, %hash<> will be like p5
On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 12:27, Scott Walters wrote:
Without commenting on the rest of the proposal, please allow me to clear
up one point:
> * Rather than eliciting public comment on %hash`foo (and indeed %hash<>)
> the proposal is being rejected out of hand
This whole thread *is* public comment.
4-15 14:29 (-0400):
> > On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 16:56, Juerd wrote:
> > > How many of those backticks
> > Note, those weren't backticks, those were programs. There were 123
> > PROGRAMS that used backticks or equivalent syntax.
>
> I said backticks, and I meant backt
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-04-15 14:29 (-0400):
> On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 16:56, Juerd wrote:
> > How many of those backticks
> Note, those weren't backticks, those were programs. There were 123
> PROGRAMS that used backticks or equivalent syntax.
I said backticks, and I mean
readpipe' {} \; | wc -l
> 123
How many of those backticks are in documentation or string literals? In
my @INC I found a lot of attempts to get balanced single quotes in ASCII
as like `foo'.
And how often are simple hash subscripts used?
Also, how insecure and/or ineffi
are not terribly distinct in that way.
There may be OTHER purposes that Perl 6 is more suited to (quite a few I
hope, or this is all just silly), but for existing glue-like tasks, I
think Perl 6 will continue to serve the same valuable role.
The point was made that Perl 5 doesn't use bac
David Storrs skribis 2004-04-14 22:39 (-0700):
> Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
> (This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
That is inconvenient.
> 1) ` looks like it should be a bracketing operator
I think you means circumfix/balanced operator.
Chris skribis 2004-04-14 17:07 (-0700):
> Perhaps this is naive, but couldn't something like this be achieved in a
> manner similar to how I just implemented it in Ruby? Surely Perl will have
> similar capabilities to handle unknown methods.
As explained in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, it's not a
questio
In a message dated Wed, 14 Apr 2004, David Storrs writes:
> Actually, what I'd like to know is when it was decided that %hash{key}
> meant %hash{key()}?? Was it in one of the Apocalypses?
Perhaps it wasn't spelled out, but the implication was certainly there.
Barewords are gone. Braces create a
On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:06:23PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
>
> If on your keyboard ` is in a worse place than {}, I'd like to know
> where it is.
>
> Juerd
Very top row, one space right of the F12 key. Extremely awkward.
(This is a US keyboard on a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop.)
Please put me down a
"Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 10:31:23PM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
> >And Perl 6 isn't? I use backticks quite a bit in Perl, and I don't
see
> > that changing if I upgr
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
