On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 21:30:19 -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 02:26:47AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>> >foreach_line { print } 'some/file';
>>
>> You really like underscores, do you?
>
>If all you got out of that thread was "Schwern likes underscores" then I
>explained
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 01:05:26PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> But I really really doubt if there's any computer language in the world
> that uses underscores in their keywords.
OH! Then I *did* explain it badly!
These >>>are not keywords!<<< They're no
I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, so for those who haven't noticed A3 is
now out:
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/02/apocalypse3.html
There's a lot to like here. I'll just cover 2 points for now though...
Larry's discussion of RFC 082, while not quite complete, does a great job of
learni
# Binary _
# Since . is taken for method calls, we need a new way to concatenate
strings. We'll use a
# solitary underscore for that. So, instead of:
#
# $a . $b . $c you'll say:
#
# $a _ $b _ $c The only downside to that is the space between a
variable name and the
# operator is required.
> I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, so for those who haven't
> noticed A3 is now out:
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/02/apocalypse3.html
And Exegesis 3 will follow within 24 hours.
> But... earlier messages from
> Larry suggested that the hyper-operator symbol would actu
> # solitary underscore for that. So, instead of:
> # $a . $b . $c you'll say:
> # $a _ $b _ $c The only downside to that is the space between a
> # variable name and the
> # operator is required. This is to be construed as a feature.
>
> Ouch. Although I don't wish
Damian Conway wrote:
>> But... earlier messages from
>> Larry suggested that the hyper-operator symbol would actually be an
adverb
>> (back then ':' was being proposed, IIRC), which sounded even more
>> exciting... Is this still the plan, with more to come in later
apocolypses
>
Damian Conway:
#> # solitary underscore for that. So, instead of:
#> # $a . $b . $c you'll say:
#> # $a _ $b _ $c The only downside to that is the
# space between a
#> # variable name and the
#> # operator is required. This is to be construed as a feature.
#>
#>
Brent Dax wrote:
> And I didn't see anything about you being able to hyper =,
> so ^= ought to be alright too.
I would expect
@a ^= 1; # sets default value for (all elems of) @a
@a ^+= 1; # increments each element of @a
etc.
Dave.
--
Dave Whipp, Senior Verification Engineer,
> PS: I'm getting excited about the announcement of _sample_ code for a
> language _design_... That's kinda 'meta-vaporware' isn't it? Where did
> things go so wrong... ;-)
I've found it a real challenge to write that sort of code. It's an
constantly (and unsteadily) moving target, I
> Set in stone, huh? Hmm. It may affect the parsing, but I'm not sure.
> Perhaps we can Arbitrarily Declare that an underscore isn't allowed as
> the last character of a symbol. That way, you can still do $foo_$bar
> without worrying about whitespace.
I doubt it. From E3:
> > And I didn't see anything about you being able to hyper =,
> > so ^= ought to be alright too.
>
> I would expect
>
>@a ^= 1; # sets default value for (all elems of) @a
>@a ^+= 1; # increments each element of @a
>
> etc.
Yep. AFAIK *every* operator (exce
** Discussion for RFC 320:
What about filetests that already return something meaningful? I'll assume
that they still behave the same. (And thus, shouldn't be chained. Unless
you're doing something weird.)
It's also mentioned that they don't short-circuit, so what do post-failure
tests te
> Imagine:
>
> @strings ^=~ s/pattern/replacement/;
>
> @refs = ^\ @list;
>
> @objects^.method();
>
> @values^++;
>
Both text-processing and number-crunching examples are here:
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/82.html#EXAMPLES
Adding the '^' before each operator is left as an exercise for the reade
Bryan asked:
> What about filetests that already return something meaningful? I'll
> assume that they still behave the same. (And thus, shouldn't be
> chained. Unless you're doing something weird.)
Yep.
> It's also mentioned that they don't short-circuit, so what do
> post-failu
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:31:09PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> @refs = ^\ @list;
So does that mean that the Perl5 meaning of
@refs = \($a, $b, $c);
will go away? It seems like it should as it's a caretless hyper.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thursday 04 October 2001 12:18 am, Damian Conway wrote:
>> ** Binary //
>>
>> Was a test for definedness *and* truthfulness considered?
>
> Err... the || operator *is* a test for that.
Hmmph. So it is. All those wasted keystrokes that I'll never recover...
how depressing.
--
B
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:24:13PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> >From E3:
>
> The doubling also helps it stand out better in code, in part
> because it forces you to put space around the C<::> so that it's
> not confused with a package name separator.
And package::subrou
> So does that mean that the Perl5 meaning of
>
>@refs = \($a, $b, $c);
>
> will go away?
I doubt it.
> It seems like it should as it's a caretless hyper.
Not really. Or, at least, no more so than C or C or C is.
Hyperoperators apply to *arrays* not lists.
What w
> And package::subroutine should go the way of package`subroutine as
> package.subroutine will work and become the preferred method :), no?
Err...no. They're still not the same thing in Perl 6:
package::subroutine(@args) --> package::subroutine(@args)
package.subroutine
Herein are drafty grumblings.
Part of quitting smoking is that my hubris has gone back up.
Here are critical first-impression notes on Apo3. Praise has
been eliminated to save space.
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/02/apocalypse3.html?page=1
> Operator precedence should be as simple
I'm going to post my general feelings on Apoc 3. Rather than just
post up about things I don't like, I'll also mention what I do like
and what I just don't understand. If I don't mention a piece, it
usually means I didn't really have much feeling one way or the other.
First, a general observati
22 matches
Mail list logo
