Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, * was originally a no-op in list context, but I think now we can
use it to deref a list that would otherwise not interpolate itself.
It maps better onto how a C programmer thinks, and if in scalar
context it also happens to defer the signature checking to use the
interpolated
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:59:36AM +0100, James Mastros wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: >Yes, * was originally a no-op in list context, but I think now we can
: >use it to deref a list that would otherwise not interpolate itself.
: >It maps better onto how a C programmer thinks, and if in scalar
: >co
On 2004-03-26 at 08:16:07, Larry Wall wrote:
> And "say" isn't in there because of APL or PHP. It's actually inspired
> by something worse in Ruby.
Presumably by "something worse" you mean "puts"? Not a great name, to
be sure, but it does have a venerable tradition behind it. :)
I do like ha
Larry Wall writes:
> : Also, how does the use of *$foo differ from @$foo here? Is the later
> : going away? (I'd think that horrible, for the same reason as above: C
> : is confusing because it's not always clear what you get when you *.)
>
> No, @$foo is not going away. You can write it that
Larry Wall skribis 2004-03-25 12:33 (-0800):
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> : Larry Wall wrote:
> : > say @bar.elems; # prints 1
> : C? Not C?
> It's just a "println" spelled Huffmanly.
What happened to the principle that things that work
Juerd writes:
> Larry Wall skribis 2004-03-25 12:33 (-0800):
> > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> > : Larry Wall wrote:
> > : > say @bar.elems;# prints 1
> > : C? Not C?
> > It's just a "println" spelled Huffmanly.
>
> Can't we instead just hav
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:41:23AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Okay, good. So this is correct:
:
: my $baz = @foo;
: @bar = map { ... } @$baz;
:
: (to be equivalent of mapping over @foo)?
Yes, that's correct.
: Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
: $ba
Larry Wall writes:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:41:23AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
> : $baz is some more complex expression, and I don't want to use * (say I
> : want to adhere if map decides to change its signature to take a
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 15:20, Luke Palmer wrote:
> When writing Perl 5, I always find myself writing @{ more often than @$.
> Maybe it's just a bad habit that I don't tend to use a lot of
> intermediate variables.
Well, one of the big problems with Perl 5's dereferencing is that it's
painful to cr
- Original Message -
From: "Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Juerd writes:
> > Has this C already been decided?
>
> Doesn't matter, because most of these decisions are up for discussion.
> I think everything that was "decided" when Apocalypse 3 was written has
> changed at least three
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joe Gottman) writes:
> This function would be very useful in inner loops, so if it is possible to
> implement it more efficiently in the core than as a sub in a module I think
> we should do so.
And, if it's possible to implement it more efficiently in the core than as a
sub in
11 matches
Mail list logo
