On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 14:41, Larry Wall wrote:
> And maybe:
>
> A bitwise operator is just a logic operator scoped to a set of bits.
Hypo-operators. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We could make "return" a method as well as a built-in sub. That gives us
>
> Loop.return($x)
> Sub.return($x)
> Topic.return($x)
> Thread.return($x)
> Block.return($x)
> There.return($x)
>
> or
>
> return Loop: $x
> return Su
Larry Wall:
# I have historically preferred that approach. Certainly it's
# something that could be enforced by a policy file too. An
# intro to programming class is likely to have such a policy
# file anyway:
#
# $ perl6
# use CS_101;
# if $a | $b {
# Prof. Roberts says you a
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Dyck wrote:
: I admit that I use pack, bitwise operators, as well as 0x constants
: in many of my scripts. I'm not sure what Angel means by taking
: some of these things out of the core, but if my short perl5 scripts
: start to grow to python length I'll have less incent
On 29 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: > : why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
: > :
: > : if $foo -> {
: > : ...
: > : return if $bar;
: > : ...
: > : }
: >
: > Except that by the c
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 at 14:50 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
> : Could we please, please, please have bitwise operators be out of the
> : core. We expect that they are not going to be used by the average
> : user, so it looks fair to apply the
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
> : why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
> :
> : if $foo -> {
> : ...
> : return if $bar;
> : ...
> : }
>
> Except that by the current rule you can only C from something
> that is declared w
> And that's also why we need a different way of returning from the
> innermost block (or any labelled block). "last" almost works, except
> it's specific to loops, at least in Perl 5 semantics. I keep thinking
> of "ret" as a little "return", but that's mostly a placeholder in
> my mind. I've g
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
: Could we please, please, please have bitwise operators be out of the
: core. We expect that they are not going to be used by the average
: user, so it looks fair to apply the ultimate negative huffman
: enconding: they need to be specially required.
:
:
> And maybe:
>
> A bitwise operator is just a logic operator scoped to a set of
> bits.
>
> That's why I can't accept a characterization of
>
> +&+|+X - bitwise operations on int
> +&= +|= +X=
>
> ~&~|~X - bitwise operations on str
>
Sorry, forgot to hit reply-all.
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:58:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: labeled if blocks
> To: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --- Larry
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: How about "leave"?
Right, that brings back some memories.
: leave
: | []
: [ [result] ];
:
: Aliases:
: =
: return -> "leave sub"
Right.
: exit -> "leave program" (or is it "thread"?)
Hmm. Dunno. I'll assume thread for now
Larry Wall:
# "last" almost works, except it's specific
# to loops, at least in Perl 5 semantics. I keep thinking of
# "ret" as a little "return", but that's mostly a placeholder
# in my mind. I've got a lot of those...
I don't see why C has to work only on loops, or why there can't be
an alt
From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"last" almost works, except it's specific to loops
But last also works for anonymous blocks, which aren't loops. (Aren't they?
Don't know about you tovarisch, but my anonymous blocks execute just once.)
In fact, that's why I asked. I have a lot of code that
How about "leave"?
leave
| []
[ [result] ];
Aliases:
=
return -> "leave sub"
exit -> "leave program" (or is it "thread"?)
break -> "leave loop" (this is shaky: does it deserve to be here?)
last -> "leave block"
Extensions (these are WAY! optional):
=
On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
:
: if $foo -> {
: ...
: return if $bar;
: ...
: }
Except that by the current rule you can only C from something
that is declared with the word "sub". ->{...} is still just a fancy
block from
"Steve Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
>
> BLAH:
> if ($foo) {
> ...
> last BLAH if $bar;
> ...
> }
why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
if $foo -> {
--
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:02:20
Larry Wall wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Steve Canfield wrote:
>: Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
>:
>: BLAH:
>: if ($foo) {
>: ...
>: last BLAH if $bar;
>: ...
>: }
>
>I don't see why
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Steve Canfield wrote:
: Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
:
: BLAH:
: if ($foo) {
: ...
: last BLAH if $bar;
: ...
: }
I don't see why we need it offhand. But we might well have something
that returns out of the innermost {...} anywa
Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
BLAH:
if ($foo) {
...
last BLAH if $bar;
...
}
_
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
20 matches
Mail list logo
