Eliza RFC

Now that Clint has Eliza running on Parrot, I propose that from henceforth, Eliza shall field all newbie questions and take responsibility of the FAQ. Eliza should also field discussions concerning why we don't add new keywords such as "elloopo"; if you can convince Eliza, then the proposal shall

Re: Loop controls

> Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-) Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ... :-) -Miko

Re: Loop controls

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Miko O'Sullivan wrote: > > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-) > > Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ... Ooh! Why don't we have a dont command! With several variants: dont FILE dont BLOCK do

Re: Loop controls

On Tuesday, April 30, 2002, at 01:22 PM, Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 1:07 PM -0400 4/30/02, Miko O'Sullivan wrote: >> > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting >> C ;-) >> >> Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, >> elstry ... > > Has anyone brought

Re: Loop controls

On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 13:07, Miko O'Sullivan wrote: > > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-) > > Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ... Aaron, trying hard not to be a crackpot, but getting the impression that's now just a dream :-/

Re: Loop controls

Why not allow C while still allowing C as a synonym, preserving backwards compatibility while still allowing all these weird and varied constructs people seem to have use for? In any case, I don't really see why C necessarily implies all these other cases, too. Maybe they're useful in the real w

Re: Loop controls

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Trey Harris wrote: > Why not allow C while still allowing C as a synonym, > preserving backwards compatibility while still allowing all these weird > and varied constructs people seem to have use for? Backwards compatability is pretty much a lost cause for Perl 6. You could

Re: Loop controls

In a message dated Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Luke Palmer writes: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Trey Harris wrote: > > > Why not allow C while still allowing C as a synonym, > > preserving backwards compatibility while still allowing all these weird > > and varied constructs people seem to have use for? > > Back

Re: Loop controls

> Then if you want "else when" or "else do", you're all set. It's an easy > change and there are no new keywords. Agree with everything else you said. One minor question: how would "else do" be different than "else"? do always does, doesn't it? -Miko

Re: Loop controls

so, assuming we have; print 'you gave me: @wordlist = ';# single quote - no interpolation for @words -> $it { print; FIRST { print '(' }# provisionally NEXT { print ',' } LAST {print ');' } } # and maybe else { print "();\n"; } this yields: you gave me: @wo

Re: Loop controls

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Jim Cromie wrote: > so, assuming we have; > > print 'you gave me: @wordlist = ';# single quote - no interpolation > > for @words -> $it { > print; > FIRST { print '(' }# provisionally > NEXT { print ',' } > LAST {print ');' } > } > # and maybe > els

Re: Loop controls

Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 1:07 PM -0400 4/30/02, Miko O'Sullivan wrote: > >> > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting >> C ;-) >> >> Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, >> elstry ... > > > Has anyone brought up elselse or unlessunless yet? > and

Re: Eliza RFC

At 11:11 AM 4/30/2002 -0400, Melvin Smith wrote: >Now that Clint has Eliza running on Parrot, I propose that >from henceforth, Eliza shall field all newbie questions >and take responsibility of the FAQ. [...] >WE WERE DISCUSSING YOU NOT ME. >we were DISCUSSING ELLOOPO! >SYMBOL NAME TOO LONG: we we

Re: Loop controls

Lots of people said: >Lots of stuff about 'else' loops. *Erik thunks himself some deep thought* I see no true slippery slope here, especially if handled correctly. I suspect that an explicit or implicit "why not" near the beginning of discussion lead to the feature feeding frenzy and the slipp

Re: Loop controls

Luke Palmer wrote: > Ooh! Why don't we have a dont command! With several variants: > dont FILE > dont BLOCK > > dont { print "Boo" } > > Would print: > > You really *should* be more careful what you wish for Luke. The following was just uploaded to the CPAN... Damian -c

Re: Loop controls

So, after all our discussions, my thinking regarding alternate blocks for loops is now running like this: 1. It would definitely be useful to be able to catch the failure of a block to iterate. 2. This ability should be available for all three types of block: C, C, and C.

Re: Loop controls

"Miko O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-) > > Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ... To quote from the INTERCAL manual (and I doubt I'm the first to steal features from that powerful lan