Murat Ünalan wrote:
Then i could pray to the god of the camel herdsman, that
my DNA human size(4) ($alpha, $beta, $gamma, $delta)
= ('atgc', 'ctga', 'aatt', 'ccaa');
may be activated through perl6 custom parser options 8-)
*Any* consistent syntax may be activat
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> is a fatal error. I could argue for this to change, as to support
> better readability (and it would). It's obvious WIM, so why doesn't it
> DWIM (disclaimer: cannot be used as an argument for arbitrary features.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Murat Ünalan) writes:
> I have a german background. But my litte english-vs-perl6 example sounds
> not so odd to me (what doesn't mean to much):
>
> my ( john, james, jim, tony ) are
> ( 102, 99,88, 79 )
Actually, I think thi
> or as useful as:
>
>my DNA %sequence is human size(4) =
>(alpha => 'atgc', beta => 'ctga', gamma => 'aatt',
> delta => 'ccaa'_;
oh , this is damn *PERFECT* !
a) easy reading
b) 'type' and 'property' adjacent without hopping through list
of varnames or complex prope
> (1)
>
> my size(4), human DNA ($alpha, $beta, $gamma, $delta ) = ( 'atgc',
> 'ctga', 'aatt', 'ccaa' );
>
> is so perfect, vs
>
> (2)
>
> my DNA ($alpha, $beta, $gamma, $delta) is human, size(4) = ( 'atgc',
> 'ctga', 'aatt', 'ccaa' );
If I were concerned about this, I would either do it the way
Murat Ünalan wrote:
And that shows precisely why Perl 6 does it the other way.
Prepending extended properties like that makes the
declaration almost unreadable. Because it separates the
I shoot in my own foot. My example was extremly bad. Give me a better
try:
(1)
my size(4), human DNA ($
> And that shows precisely why Perl 6 does it the other way.
> Prepending extended properties like that makes the
> declaration almost unreadable. Because it separates the
I shoot in my own foot. My example was extremly bad. Give me a better
try:
(1)
my size(4), human DNA ($alpha, $beta, $ga
Murat Ünalan wrote:
Then you're just not thinking in enough simultaneous dimensions:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant
= (0,1, 2);
This could been written faster in a single line, without decorating with
extra newline+tab+tab+tab+tab:
It's source code. Four extra
> Yes, but
>
> my int $foo is constant;
>
> Is self-explanatory for many language-speakers. If I recall,
> the set of cross-language-programmers is a proper subset of
> the set of language-speakers. It is clear which is clearer :).
You do "proof by best case scenario". In my previous posti
> > where the distance grows with property-syntax-complexity.
>
> Oh, *that's* what you're concerned about?
> Then you're just not thinking in enough simultaneous dimensions:
>
>
> my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant
> = (0,1, 2);
This could been written faster i
Murat Ünalan wrote:
Oh yes. Psycho-affectivly it is disturbing seeing the group of variables
($pre, $in, $post) teared apart from the initilizing (0..2). This is my
second step in the brain when analysing it. And this is prone to
problems like in:
my int ($one, $two, $three, $four, $five, $six,
Luke Palmer wrote:
> In Perl 5,
>
> my int ($one = 0, $two = 1, $three = 2);
>
> is a fatal error. I could argue for this to change, as to support
> better readability (and it would). It's obvious WIM, so why doesn't
> it DWIM (disclaimer: cannot be used as an argument for arbitrary
> featu
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Murat_=DCnalan?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 14:50:22 +0100
>
> > > my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
> > >
> > > Two things "type and property" that belong so together
> >
> > Do they? Surely the type and constancy of a variable are
> > ent
> > my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
> >
> > Two things "type and property" that belong so together
>
> Do they? Surely the type and constancy of a variable are
> entirely orthogonal to each other.
Oh yes. Psycho-affectivly it is disturbing seeing the group of variables
($pre, $
Murat Ünalan wrote:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
Two things "type and property" that belong so together
Do they? Surely the type and constancy of a variable are entirely
orthogonal to each other.
Besides, if you want them near each other, you can write them this way:
my
In the name of the bum (and c++-used eyes), i have some small criticism
about the "type and property" syntax. "Exegesis 2 - Any variables to
declare?" suggests:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
Two things "type and property" that belong so together are visually so
disrupted, which
16 matches
Mail list logo
