Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Siracusa wrote:
>> Larry's just thinking out loud, right?
>
> Yes, and so is everyone else. Most posts here, including Larry's,
> are stream-of-conciousness. Heck, in one of the last ones I swear
> there were, what, 6 or 7 possible ways to say t
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:01:31 -0700
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-Accept-Language: en,pdf
> Cc: Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12-dev, http://develo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> : I hope you're not buying any of this crap
> : about Perl 6 being more "regular" or removing the "inconsistencies" of
> : Perl 5. It simply isn't true.
>
> Hey, sounds like it'd make a great column. Go for it. I'll expect
> a little more than an argumen
Larry Wall wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2002, Smylers wrote:
>
> : Larry Wall wrote:
> :
> : > print(length $a), "\n";
> : > print (length $a), "\n";
> :
> : Those look to me like they should do the same thing as each other.
>
> Sorry, they don't look that way to me.
Having slept on it, I'm not
Simon Cozens wrote:
> However hard it may be to believe, I'm not just saying this to be
> snarky; I am excited by Perl 6 and want to see good things come out of
> it. I just want to make sure that the various creative processes are
> kept in check. :)
Simon, please keep doing this! I think it's
"Steve Canfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Will Perl6 have labeled if blocks? Like this:
>
> BLAH:
> if ($foo) {
> ...
> last BLAH if $bar;
> ...
> }
why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
if $foo -> {
...
return if $bar;
...
}
this of course
On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > Larry wrote:
> > > If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada
> > > route of specifying the radix explicitly:
Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place of your colon below),
and I seem to recall that sy
Damian Conway wrote:
: > or
: >
: > given ( "/home/temp/", $f )
: > -> ( str $x , int $n ) {
: > $x ~ ["one, "two", ... , "hundreed"][$n]
: > };
: >
: > it seems that the last does not work because given take only one argument.
:
: That's right. But th
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Heck, I'd even argue that "$a mat $b" works, too.
> What does "mat" do? It "mats". If "grep" is a word, "mat" can be a
> word. :-) Or "lik". Or "sma".
Or just z, as in "matchez" or a twisted "s"
$foo mat $bar
$foo mz $bar
$foo lik $bar
Simon Cozens wrote:
> I just see code like
> ~~ sub (@x) { map { _ => _ } @attrs x Inf ^, @x }
> and get the screaming heaves.
I agree, it's like the punchline to a perl-haters joke. We're supposed
to explain _that_ to people? :-/ NORMAL people? 8-/ And not get
punched in the face?
Maybe t
If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes:
unary (prefix) operators:
\ - reference to
* - list flattening
? - force to bool context
! - force to bool context, negate
not - force to bool context, negate
+ - force to numeric context
- - force t
11 matches
Mail list logo
