David L. Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, exactly. I would like to have a transpose operator, which
> will work on a list of hash refs, so this:
>
> $solids = [1..7];
> $stripes = [9..15];
> foreach (transpose($solids,$stripes));
> print "the $_->[0] ball is the same color as the $_->[1]\
David L. Nicol wrote:
> No, that does not work:
Right; I misunderstood what was wanted.
--
John Porter
> Sounds like what we really want is a form of "for" which can iterate
> over a list of hashes or arrays:
>
> for my @a ( @foo, @bar ) { ...
>
> for my %h ( %foo, %bar ) { ...
Yes.
Isn't the underlying issue in the above how perl6 handles manipulation
and aliasing of multi-dimensional arrays i
> Why would you want it to print Monkey Hero, I would expect $_ to be
> localized, rather than global, which could prove more convenient.
No, it's still localized.
But the With would mean that $_ in a way becomes a normal variable like $foo
was, and the $foo is now the 'default variable'.
ce option, in my opinion it's useless, but if
was implemented this could be a way:)
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: 'John Porter '
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/19/2001 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: what's with 'with'? (was: [aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]])
Sterin, Ily
Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> Well then maybe $_ can be a reference to a multidimensional array or hash,
> and temp vars can be access like this.
>
> for ( @foo, @bar ) {
> print "$_->[0] : $_->[1]\n";
> }
That's bizarre and unnecessary. We can already do this:
for ( \@foo, \@bar ) {
print "$_
[aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]])
> But can someone reiterate the
> difference between the above and
>
> for($foo){
>print "I am not a $foo\n";
> # or:
>print "I am not a ";
>print;
> }
Try this under the current for system, cause it
Bart Lateur wrote:
> So, in this case, a "with" synonym for "for" would work.
>
> But this only works for scalars. You can't have a %foo alias to
> %Some::Other::hash this way, or a @bar alias to @Some::Other::array.
Sounds like what we really want is a form of "for" which can iterate
over a lis
> But can someone reiterate the
> difference between the above and
>
> for($foo){
>print "I am not a $foo\n";
> # or:
>print "I am not a ";
>print;
> }
Try this under the current for system, cause it's unclear what will happen
for those new to Perl:
$foo="monkey"; $_=" coward";
Agree. I think that with() should only be used with object references only,
and $_ should be set accordingly.
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: John Porter
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/19/2001 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]
Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> But I thought t
: John Porter
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/19/2001 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: what's with 'with'? (was: [aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]])
I believe what is really wanted is for "for" to be able to iterate
over lists of arrays or hashes:
for my @i ( @foo, @bar ) { ...
Sterin, Ilya wrote:
> But I thought this was related to more than just with(), so if we have
>
> ### Would now have to be printed as
>
> print "This is number ";
> print;
> print " of 10\n";
>
> I still believe that although not defining a variable source will use the
> temp variable there is s
> Like "I am not a
> coward" which can be easily done with print "I am not a $_"; will now have
> to be written in two separate lines, and possibly more if there is more to
> follow.
>
> Ilya
Um, of course the original way is still possible!
I believe what is really wanted is for "for" to be able to iterate
over lists of arrays or hashes:
for my @i ( @foo, @bar ) { ...
for my %i ( %foo, %bar ) { ...
with real aliasing occuring.
If @_ and %_ are the default iterator variables, then imagine:
for ( @argset1,
(was: [aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]])
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Stuart Rocks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>>Both the following would work:
>>
>>with($foo){
>> print "I am not a $foo\n";
>> # or:
>> print "I am not a ";
&
es, and possibly more if there is more to
follow.
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: Garrett Goebel
To: 'Stuart Rocks'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/19/2001 12:34 PM
Subject: what's with 'with'? (was: [aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]])
From: Stuart Rocks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cks
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/19/2001 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: aliasing - was:[nice2haveit]
> >Then how would you write "I am not a coward"
>
> with ($foo)
> {
> print "I am not a"; ##What do I use here or do I have to issue a
>#
Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Stuart Rocks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>>Both the following would work:
>>
>>with($foo){
>> print "I am not a $foo\n";
>> # or:
>> print "I am not a ";
>> print;
>>}
>>
>
> Okay... I've been mostly ignoring this thread. But can someone reiterate the
> d
From: Stuart Rocks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Both the following would work:
>
> with($foo){
>print "I am not a $foo\n";
> # or:
>print "I am not a ";
>print;
> }
Okay... I've been mostly ignoring this thread. But can someone reiterate the
difference between the above and
for
> >Then how would you write "I am not a coward"
>
> with ($foo)
> {
> print "I am not a"; ##What do I use here or do I have to issue a
>##separate print like...
> print;
> }
>
> Ilya
Well in Perl5, for the print to use default value it's just 'print;'. The
same applie
Stuart Rocks wrote:
>>
>> C would also make the [variable, alias, whatever]
>> default, but not replace the $_:
>>
>> $_ = "monkey ";
>> $foo = "coward";
>> with ($foo){
>> print;
>> print "$_";
>> }
>>
>> would output "monkey coward".
>okay, "coward" is default but $_ has not been r
> I've go tired of typing :"), but if I had current index-iterator ( say under
> $i just as example) at hand the way I have $_ i can just type :
>
> print "$_ : $b[$i]\n" for @a;
> OR
> print "$a[$i] : $b[$i]\n" for @a;
>
For a general solution to this see Buddha Buck's RFC on iterators:
How about
print "$a[$_]:$b[$_] for 0..$#a;
or in the p6 case...
print "@a[$_]:@b[$_]" for 0..$#a;
Ilya
-Original Message-
From: raptor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07/18/2001 12:14 PM
Subject: one more nice2haveit
hi,
As I was programming i got again to one thing i
> > So, in this case, a "with" synonym for "for" would work.
> >
> Particularly if '$_' was implied... So with Perl 6's '.' replacing '->',
> and 'with' aliasing 'for':
>
>with ( $XL.{Application}.{ActiveSheet} ) {
> .cells(1,1) = "Title";
> .language() = "English";
>}
This is m
> > So, in this case, a "with" synonym for "for" would work.
> >
> Particularly if '$_' was implied... So with Perl 6's '.' replacing '->',
> and 'with' aliasing 'for':
>
>with ( $XL.{Application}.{ActiveSheet} ) {
> .cells(1,1) = "Title";
> .language() = "English";
>}
This is m
hi,
As I was programming i got again to one thing i alwas needed to have...
especialy when write something fast or debug some result... words comes
about for/foreach and accessing the current-index of the array I'm working
with i.e.
say I have two arrays @a and @b and want to print them (al
>> Does such a thing exist already?
>
>A WTDI exists already:
>
>for ( $XL->{Application}->{ActiveSheet} ) {
> $_->cells(1,1) = "Title";
> $_->language() = "English";
>}
>
>(presuming lvalue-methods, of course...)
So, in this case, a "with" synonym for "for" would work.
]- OR
Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:00:25 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >for ( $XL->{Application}->{ActiveSheet} ) {
> > $_->cells(1,1) = "Title";
> > $_->language() = "English";
> >}
> >
> >(presuming lvalue-methods, of course...)
>
> So, in this case, a "with" s
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 09:00:25 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>> Does such a thing exist already?
>
>A WTDI exists already:
>
>for ( $XL->{Application}->{ActiveSheet} ) {
> $_->cells(1,1) = "Title";
> $_->language() = "English";
>}
>
>(presuming lvalue-methods, of course...)
So, in th
Jeremy Howard wrote:
> with $XL->{Application}->{ActiveSheet} {
> ->cells(1,1) = "Title"
> ->language() = "English"
> }
>
> Does such a thing exist already?
A WTDI exists already:
for ( $XL->{Application}->{ActiveSheet} ) {
$_->cells(1,1) = "Title";
$_->language() =
"raptor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<...>
> the idea of aliasing is to preserve the fast access and on the other side
to
> shorden the "accessor"(i.e the way to access the structure) and make code
> clearer.(mostly u can choose a name that has better meaning in your
context)
>
This reminds me... a
> > > I mean something like this :
> >
> > > instead of :
> > > #$Request->{Params}
> > > local *myhash = \%{$$Request{Params}};
> >
> > > my %myhash alias %{$$Request{Params}};#see - it is my (now as far as I
know
> > > u can't have it 'my')
> >
> >You don't need a typeglob there; you can do the
At 05:10 AM 7/17/2001 +, Mark Morgan wrote:
>Raptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I mean something like this :
>
> > instead of :
> > #$Request->{Params}
> > local *myhash = \%{$$Request{Params}};
>
> > my %myhash alias %{$$Request{Params}};#see - it is my (now as far as I know
> > u can't ha
Raptor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean something like this :
> instead of :
> #$Request->{Params}
> local *myhash = \%{$$Request{Params}};
> my %myhash alias %{$$Request{Params}};#see - it is my (now as far as I know
> u can't have it 'my')
You don't need a typeglob there; you can do the fo
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 03:37:41PM -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> > one related point is that this symbol table will be accessible via
> > caller() so you could access/install lexical symbols in a parent block
> > on the call stack. scary!
> >
> > uri
>
> We must demand t
At 03:37 PM 7/16/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> > one related point is that this symbol table will be accessible via
> > caller() so you could access/install lexical symbols in a parent block
> > on the call stack. scary!
>
>We must demand that the feature come with a wa
Uri Guttman wrote:
> one related point is that this symbol table will be accessible via
> caller() so you could access/install lexical symbols in a parent block
> on the call stack. scary!
Quite. Does anyone have a pointer to tchrist's rant on Tcl's upvar?
--
John Porter
> > $Foo::{'$bar'} = \$baz; # Alias $Foo::bar to $baz
>
> Are we back to "globals only"? What about lexical aliases? Something
> like:
>
> my \%foo = \%bar;
I've always wondered why the backslash operator wasn't lvaluable. (IIRC, C++'s &
operator is semi-lvaluable.) IM(V)HO
> "BL" == Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
BL> On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:55:07 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
>> Would you like to clarify what you mean here.
>> Are you talking about typeglob assignments?
>> Perl 6 will have:
>>
>> $Foo::{'$bar'} = \$baz;# Ali
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:55:07 +1000 (EST), Damian Conway wrote:
>Would you like to clarify what you mean here.
>Are you talking about typeglob assignments?
>Perl 6 will have:
>
> $Foo::{'$bar'} = \$baz; # Alias $Foo::bar to $baz
Are we back to "globals only"? What about lexical alia
> Yes but can't the same be accomplished with...
>
> my $myhash = (%{$Request->{Params}});
> print $myhash{abc};
>
> Though again it copies the structure, I don't see how dereferencing can be
> unclear?
]- if u have someting like this anything u can remove in some way is worth
it:))
$tables{
3/01 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: nice2haveit
the structure is something like this :
$Request = {
Params => {
abc => 1,
ddd => 2
}
}
the idea is that U don't dereference i.e. :
my $myhash = ($Request->{Params});
if u want to use it U have to do this
At 09:24 PM 7/13/2001 +0300, raptor wrote:
>in the case of :
> >local *myhash = \%{$Request->{Params}};
>u do this :
>
>print $myhash{abc};
>
>so it is first clearer and second I hope much faster
Clearer maybe, faster probably not appreciably.
Regardless, the lexical 'symbol table' will be
the structure is something like this :
$Request = {
Params => {
abc => 1,
ddd => 2
}
}
the idea is that U don't dereference i.e. :
my $myhash = ($Request->{Params});
if u want to use it U have to do this :
print $$myhash{abc}; #or if u preffer print $myhash
-Original Message-
From: raptor
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 7/13/01 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: nice2haveit
>> Two things i think is good to have it :
>>
>> 1. ALIAS keyword.
>> - first reason is 'cause many people don'
>> Two things i think is good to have it :
>>
>> 1. ALIAS keyword.
>> - first reason is 'cause many people don't know that this is
possible.. at
>> least any newscommer and it will help not to forgot that it exist
:").
>> - Code become more readable.
>> - can be Over
> Two things i think is good to have it :
>
> 1. ALIAS keyword.
> - first reason is 'cause many people don't know that this is possible.. at
> least any newscommer and it will help not to forgot that it exist :").
> - Code become more readable.
> - can be Overloaded
>
hi,
Two things i think is good to have it :
1. ALIAS keyword.
- first reason is 'cause many people don't know that this is possible.. at
least any newscommer and it will help not to forgot that it exist :").
- Code become more readable.
- can be Overloaded
- the syntax for aliasing can becom
48 matches
Mail list logo
