> Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
> to mean "fall through to the next case". I don't think
> this is wise, since we'll often want to use loop controls
> within a switch statement. Instead, I think we should
> use skip to do that. (To be read as "Skip to the next
> statement.
I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a
deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's
doing to the language, I had an epiphany. Perl6 is simply not Perl. It's
about as much Perl as Pe
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a
> deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
>
> I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of what Larry's
> doing to the language, I
At 4:12 PM + 1/28/02, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:44:19AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>> I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads it take a
>> deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
>>
>> I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at th
[I'm an idiot. I forgot to send this to the group, too.]
Aaron Sherman:
# I'm going to just say this, and I ask that everyone who reads
# it take a
# deep breath, count to 10 and then respond if you wish.
#
# I was reading Apoc 4 and while marveling at the elegence of
# what Larry's
# doing to t
> What I don't want to start (and I may have done so anyway) is a simple
> name war. If you feel emotionally attached to "Perl", then fine, so am
> I. But if you feel that there is some compelling logic here that will
> affect the community, I would be very interested.
The reason why it's still
On Sat, 2002-01-26 at 12:01, Simon Cozens wrote:
> A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
> $foo{bar}
> actually should be written
> %foo{"bar"}
Hmm... I'm curious, has anyone yet tackled printf("%d{x}",%d{x})? Is
that a bug or does it produce "n{x}" where n i
Aaron Sherman:
# On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 11:17, Brent Dax wrote:
#
# > I'd like you to perform an exercise for me if you have a Camel III.
#
# I have a Camel 1 (pink) and 2, but not 3. However, I follow
# you. You are
# (as everyone else has fallen into the trap of) thinking of only what
# hurdles a
Aaron Sherman:
# On Sat, 2002-01-26 at 12:01, Simon Cozens wrote:
# > A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
# > $foo{bar}
# > actually should be written
# > %foo{"bar"}
#
# Hmm... I'm curious, has anyone yet tackled printf("%d{x}",%d{x})? Is
# that a bug or do
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 10:43:08PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> Melvin Smith wrote in perl6-language:
> >>
> >>Besides no one has commented on Steve Fink's (I think it was him) idea
> >>to store the result of the most recently executed conditional in $?. I
> >>kinda like that idea myself.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:56:03AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> Allowing $? would eliminate having any different behavior from boolean
> vs scalar context, and that seems like a potentially bad idea. (And I
> really don't like the idea of behavior changing based on the addition
> of a $? way down wi
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:31:13PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 1/25/2002 -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
> >>
> >> >What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Simon wrote:
:
: > Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
:
: So:
:
: @result = map { block } @data;
:
: becomes:
:
: @result = {block}^.(@data);
:
: Hmmm.
Some people might think of it more like this:
@result = @data
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 11:30:41AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> @result = @data ^ $subref;
>
> That's gettin' kinda scary.
Hence the original question. :)
--
Sendmail may be safely run set-user-id to root.
-- Eric Allman, "Sendmail Installation Guide"
From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Aaron Sherman:
> #
> # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
> # and think "hey, I know Perl, no sweat" will disagree with
> # you.
>
> I disagree. He'll see stuff he doesn't understand and try to
> consult perldoc on it, at wh
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:52:13PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
:
:From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
:> Aaron Sherman:
:> #
:> # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
:> # and think "hey, I know Perl, no sweat" will disagree with
:> # you.
:>
:> I disagree. He'll
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Aaron Sherman:
> > #
> > # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
> > # and think "hey, I know Perl, no sweat" will disagree with
> > # you.
> >
> > I disagree. He'll see stuff he
Larry Wall:
# Some people might think of it more like this:
#
# @result = @data ^. {block};
#
# except that {block} would be parsed as a subscript, and you want
# argument binding, so it starts looking more like:
#
# @result = @data ^-> $a {block};
#
# But -> really is a term-forcer, s
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Simon Cozens) wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:53PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > Perhaps we shouldn't be using ; for this.
>
> Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
Something like
@res = ^{ DoSomething($a) }, @sou
Simon Cozens writes:
: Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
Before someone panics completely, I suppose I should point out that I'm
not terribly interested in dropping the current C syntax. It's
essentially a method on a closure in its current form, which doesn't
rule out
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:03:55PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > Do they need to? In the simple case, the hyperoperator provides list
: > context to its arguments, but just calls the scalar operation repeatedly
: > to fake up the list operation. Any operator
: >
: >
At 01:52 PM 1/28/2002 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Brent Dax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Aaron Sherman:
> > #
> > # I think the first guy that gets hired to maintain Perl6 code,
> > # and think "hey, I know Perl, no sweat" will disagree with
> > # you.
> >
> > I disagree. He'll see stuf
Melvin Smith writes:
: Maybe they just have a huge unwieldy Perl4 app they don't wish to port.
The perl5-to-perl6 translator should handle Perl 4 as well. It might
even handle Perls 3, 2, and 1. :-)
Larry
Buddha Buck writes:
: We have
: while (foo()) -> $a {...}
: doing the right thing.
Well, C does that currently, not C, but...
: Why can't
:
: if foo() -> $a { ... }
:
: take the place of the perl5
:
: if (my $a = foo()) {...}
I'd do something explicit like ->$a before I'd do some implicit
> Perl6 isn't going to make everyone happy.
That's right, it isn't. Nor should it strive to.
First off, there are the folks who've no clue what Perl even is. Perl 6
won't make them happy. On the other hand, they won't really be disappointed
with it, either. But that's a rather silly demogr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program
> in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will
> most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without the
> benefit of experiencing the major improvements that those ch
On 1/28/02 9:43 PM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> So, what *is* in a name? If a rose by any other name would smell just as
> sweet, why continue to call it a rose? Because identifiers are a proxy for
> what they represent - an evocation of the object without benefit of having
> one.
Heh, "programme
On Monday 28 January 2002 21:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The third group that won't be happy with Perl 6 are those who program
> > in a limited subset of Perl - so limited, in fact, that they will
> > most likely be bitten by minor changes in the language, without t
28 matches
Mail list logo
