"Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mr. Nobody:
> # I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax,
> # and how many only say they do because it's Damian Conway who
> # proposed it. And map/grep aren't "specialized syntax", you
>
> IIRC Damian also supports Unicode operators (
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And note that as pretty as -> is, we couldn't have <- for piping
> because it would conflict rather strongly things like
>
> if ($a<-5)# (negative five, or pipelike?)
Its resolved by the "
In the L2R thread, I made a comment where I contrasted a for loop
with a junction. On reflection, I think we could go further.
If we defined
my $prev = 0;
sub mangle($value) { $value + $prev; $prev=$value }
and then used it as:
my $x = any(1,2,3);
$y = mangle($x);
then the semant
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:10, you wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
> > I don't think any aspect
> > of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5
> > behaviors,
> Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't
> name-calling; this is a plea
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brent Dax asked:
>
>> So
>> @a ~> grep { ... } ~> @b
>> Is the same as
>> @b = grep { ... } @a
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>> As in...
>> class Array {
>> ...
>> method grep (Array $ary: Code $code) returns Array {
>>
"Mr. Nobody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 11:00 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
>> >> ...the absence of the commas is what's special. If they were normal
>> >> function
Dave Whipp wrote:
And note that as pretty as -> is, we couldn't have <- for piping
because it would conflict rather strongly things like
if ($a<-5)# (negative five, or pipelike?)
Its resolved by the "longest token" rule, but it would be a common bug. So
it would be a potential problem.
Piers Cawley wrote:
Multimethods don't belong to classes; they mediate interactions
*between* classes.
Will the 'is multi' actually be necessary? Just curious.
That's still being discussed. *Something* is necessary. But it may
be that, instead of:
sub handle (Window $w, Event $e, Mode $m) i
Dave Whipp wrote:
Let us now imagine that C is a junction operator, instead of a
looping statement. Now we could write:
my $x = for(1,2,3);
my $y = mangle($x);
and we can be certain that $y == (1,3,6), because a "for-junction"
will distribute that evaluations sequentially.
Yes, but will
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>
>>>Multimethods don't belong to classes; they mediate interactions
>>>*between* classes.
>> Will the 'is multi' actually be necessary? Just curious.
>
> That's still being discussed. *Something* is necessary. But it may
> be that, i
Piers Cawley wrote:
I really don't like that fine grained syntax I'm afraid. And I'm not
entirely sure you actually gain anything from it do you?
That's one of the questions we're still pondering. But see below.
I also find myself wondering if functions called with:
$foo.bar($baz)
sho
Damian Conway wrote:
> If the rule was, "you can leave a comma out either side of a block/closure,
> no matter where it appears in the argument list", it would also be more
> consistent.
>
> And that's what's being contemplated. Because otherwise, you also have
> to have:
>
> for @list, {
Damian Conway wrote:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
> > I really don't like that fine grained syntax I'm afraid. And I'm not
> > entirely sure you actually gain anything from it do you?
>
> That's one of the questions we're still pondering.
Suppose I wanted to do something like:
sub draw_triangle( Po
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Suppose I wanted to do something like:
sub draw_triangle( Point $a, Point $b, Point $c );
-and-
sub draw_triangle( int $x1,$y1, int $x2,$y2, int $x3,$y3 );
Err. Why would you only want the X parameters to be explicitly typed?
I suspect you mean:
sub draw_tria
On Friday, January 17, 2003, 6:35:47 PM, you (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 06:21:43PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Nobody) writes:
>> > I have to wonder how many people actually like this syntax, and how many only
>> > say they do because it's D
Sam Vilain wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:10, you wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Lazzaro) writes:
I don't think any aspect
of this discussion is hinged on people being 'ignorant' of perl5
behaviors,
Oh, I do, and you've dismissed that argument out of hand. This isn't
name-calling
"Joseph F. Ryan" wrote:
> Perhaps in the grand scheme of things; however, anyone that is
> redesigning a system should not be ignorant of how the old system
> worked (even in the slightest degree), in order to know of what to
> keep and what to throw away.
Oy. One more time. My objection is this
17 matches
Mail list logo
