Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Incidentally, the table of C<=~> comparisons (Table 1) at:
>
> http://dev.perl.org/perl6/apocalypse/4
>
> suggests that hash/hash matching is equivalent to:
>
> match if grep exists $a{$_}, $b.keys
>
> I hope to convince Larry that it would b
At 2:33 PM +0100 4/7/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
>"Jonathan E. Paton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> but wait, there's more... what does:
>>
>> @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
>>
>> give?
>
>Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in
>@multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to [].
Hrm. Will they need to?
> >> but wait, there's more... what does:
> >>
> >> @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
> >>
> >> give?
> >
> >Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in
> >@multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to [].
>
> Hrm. Will they need to? That could arguably pass a three
> element key ($a,$b,$c) to @multi_dim w
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 2:33 PM +0100 4/7/02, Piers Cawley wrote:
>>"Jonathan E. Paton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> but wait, there's more... what does:
>>>
>>> @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
>>>
>>> give?
>>
>>Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in
>>@multi_dim.[$
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 13:01, Jonathan E. Paton wrote:
> I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write
> the RPC:
>
> "Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays"
>
> or
>
> "Save our array!"
Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase:
If {} goes away in Perl6, then everyt
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 13:01, Jonathan E. Paton wrote:
>
>> I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write
>> the RPC:
>>
>> "Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays"
>>
>> or
>>
>> "Save our array!"
>
> Let's boil this RFC down to
> > I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write
> > the RPC:
> >
> > "Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays"
> >
> > or
> >
> > "Save our array!"
>
> Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase:
>
> If {} goes away in Perl6, then everything you've heard
> about Perl6
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:55PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Also, just wondering:
>
> $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
>
> does that work the way I expect it to?
Well, my internal Perl 6 parser hadn't been used all that much, but if
you expect this to be a syntax error, then I think yo
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Also, just wondering:
> >
> > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
> >
> > does that work the way I expect it to?
>
> Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's
> going to be a syntax error at the third '_'. B
"Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> > Also, just wondering:
>> >
>> >$_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
>> >
>> > does that work the way I expect it to?
>>
>> Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking ther
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 14:56, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Also, just wondering:
> >
> > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
> >
> > does that work the way I expect it to?
>
> Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's
> going to be a
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:09, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > > Also, just wondering:
> > >
> > > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
> > >
> > > does that work the way I expect it to?
> >
> > Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of th
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:12, Piers Cawley wrote:
> "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >> > $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_
> > $_.[_()] _ @_._() _= _0_() - _()
[...]
> > This is where my interpretation fails because t
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:01:57PM +0100, Jonathan E. Paton wrote:
> To make the symbols {} and [] aggregate you'd have to
> default [] to using hashes - and force it back to
> arrays using explicit syntax. You can't automagically
> decide that it's never going to be used like a hash.
>
> I'm I
Damian Conway writes:
: > > use invocant 'self';
Hmm. My first inclination is to say it should be something like:
macro self { '%MY.frame.arg[0]' }
But suppose you want all .foo to refer to self and not to the current
topic. It would be problematic to have a macro whose name is "".
S
Larry wrote:
> : > > use invocant 'self';
>
> Hmm. My first inclination is to say it should be something like:
>
> macro self { '%MY.frame.arg[0]' }
>
> But suppose you want all .foo to refer to self and not to the current
> topic. It would be problematic to have a macro whose name
Aaron Sherman writes:
: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 13:01, Jonathan E. Paton wrote:
:
: > I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write
: > the RPC:
: >
: > "Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays"
: >
: > or
: >
: > "Save our array!"
:
: Let's boil this RFC down to one short
Damian Conway writes:
: > Fortunately, Igority is transitive...
:
: I thought that was maxim was: "Igorance is blithth".
That's not a maxim, that's a minim.
Larry
> : I thought that was maxim was: "Igorance is blithth".
>
> That's not a maxim, that's a minim.
No need to get all crotchet-y.
Damian
>
>$a is a hash key
>$b is an array index
>$c is another hash key
>
>So, if I try:
>
>@multi_dim[$b][$a][$c]
>
>then it's obviously going to break. But how can I, the
>programmer, easily spot that? It's not as clear as:
>
>@multi_dim{$a}[$b]{$c}
>
>where I can see what I'm getting as I work thr
> As to the inspring issue about using [] for hashes, I say go for it if
> (and only if) it is a signifigant improvement for the parser.
I would imagine it's not. The braces are one of the things that make Perl
"feel" like Perl. My original post that inspired this gigantic discussion
was simp
21 matches
Mail list logo
