On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
> interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
> feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling slightly deflated. Given the chance to re-design
Lis
Damian Conway writes:
>
> Not equivalent at all. C<$foo~>bar> means "append $foo to the argument list
> of subroutine C". C means "make C<$foo> the invocant for method
> ".
>
> Curiously enough, the confusions I'm hearing over this issue are, to me, the
> strongest argument yet for using
"Michael Lazzaro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Of course, _I'd_ even prefer using <- and -> as the 'piping' operators,
> and having ~> or |> for pointy sub, because then $a->foo and $a.foo
> really _could_ be the same thing, 'cept for precedenc
Smylers wrote:
Thom Boyer wrote:
The primary advantage, to my mind, in using C, is that it
eliminates the dangling-else ambiguity -- so splitting it in half
removes almost ALL the value of even having an C keyword.
Surely it's the compulsory braces, even with a single statement, which
eliminat
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> $a = sub ($a, $b) { ... }
> $x = -> ($y, $z) { ... }
>
> The pointy-arrow doesn't buy anything here.
IMHO, it's actually a loss. I have yet to come up with any mnemonic
for "pointy arrow means sub" that will actually stick in my br
The question is, can I create a method on a class with a different scope than
the class itself has? Put another way, it seems like
module ArrayMath;
sub sum(Array $this){
$this.reduce(operator::+, 0);
}
method Array::sum(;){
.reduce(operator::+, 0);
}
(modulo syntax errors) then both
--- Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
> > I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
> > interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
> > feeling adventurous...
>
> I can't help feel
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Austin Hastings wrote:
> I'm done with 'P'. That's it. Putative planners of programming
> paradigms must proffer some prefix preferable to the pathetic
> palimpsest that is 'P'!
As with operators, so with programming languages -- Unicode comes not a
moment too soon.
/s
"David Storrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And then we can replace the ~> with ->:
> >
> > for 1,2,3,4
> > -> sub ($a, $b) { $a+$b }
> > -> sub ($a) { $a**2 }
> > -> { $^foo - 1 }
> > -> print;
> >
> > And this begs the que
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:52 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
But in a for loop:
for 1,2,3,4 { ... }
for 1,2,3,4 -> ($a,$b) {...}
its cuteness works because the brain sees it as a piping operator (even
though its not).
That's an excellent observation. I like the 'for' syntax quite a bit,
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:03:13 -0600
> From: "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.20, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> The question is, can I create a method on a class with a different
> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:38:23 -0800
> From: Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 03:52 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> > But in a for loop:
> >
> > for 1,2,3,4 { ... }
> > for 1,2,3,4 -> ($a,$b) {...}
> >
> > its cuteness works because the brain sees it as a pipi
Michael Lazzaro writes:
> And it provides a very visual way to define any pipe-like algorithm, in
> either direction:
>
> $in -> lex -> parse -> codify -> optimize -> $out; # L2R
>
> $out <- optimize <- codify <- parse <- lex <- $in; # R2L
>
> It's clear, from looking at e
--- Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[[... Massive elision ...]]
> I'm thinking it would be a very good idea to unify C and C
> in their argument style. I still think the distinction between
> C's void and C's list context is a good one; i.e. don't
> make them I synonyms.
>
> But it seems
David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:52:30PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
>
>> $a = sub ($a, $b) { ... }
>> $x = -> ($y, $z) { ... }
>>
>> The pointy-arrow doesn't buy anything here.
>
> IMHO, it's actually a loss. I have yet to come up with any mnemonic
> for "poi
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> *Now*, what to do about the fantastic magic that pointy-sub provides?
> The _spectacular_ win would be if we could just recognize an optional
> parameter list as part of a block.
>
> map @a : ($a,$b) {...} # params + closure = closure with params?
> for @a : ($a
The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030119
Summary time again, damn but those tuits are hard to round up. Guess,
what? perl6-internals comes first. 141 messages this week versus the
language list's 143.
Objects (again)
Objects were still very much on everyone's mind as the d
17 matches
Mail list logo
