Le Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:00:42AM +0200, le valeureux mongueur Pedro Larroy a dit:
> Hi
>
> Is there any chance that in perl6 there will be the possibility to write
> if/else statements without {}s with the condition at the beginning?
>
> Like
>
> if (condition)
> statement;
>
> In orde
Stéphane Payrard wrote:
Le Wed, May 12, 2004 at 02:00:42AM +0200, le valeureux mongueur Pedro Larroy a dit:
Hi
Is there any chance that in perl6 there will be the possibility to write
if/else statements without {}s with the condition at the beginning?
Like
if (condition)
statement;
In o
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 12:57:15AM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 May 2004 10:13 pm, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 08:31:55PM -0400, Andrew Rodland wrote:
> > : On Tuesday 11 May 2004 08:00 pm, Pedro Larroy wrote:
> > : > Hi
> > : >
> > : > Is there any chance that in
Pedro Larroy writes:
> Yes, thanks a lot for your answers. I appreciate them.
>
> I think I'm now pretty attached to perl culture and I'm just a little
> worried, as a humble perl programmer, about "things changing too much"
> in perl6. Specially after reading coments like getting rid of the
> pa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> familiar. You'll find this in the earlier Exegeses, Piers Cawley's
> article "Perl 6: Not Just for Damians"
> (http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html), some of the
> presentations from the last few conference seasons, and scattered about
> the c
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:47:04AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: For some reason, lots of people don't like it when indentation is
: what's controlling their code structure...
Indentation is a wonderful form of commentary from programmer to
programmer, but its symbology is largely wasted on the
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:47:04AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: although it might perhaps be a little early to go for Python-like syntax.
s/early/late/
Python's syntax succeeds in combining the mistakes of Lisp and Fortran.
I do not contrue that as progress.
Larry
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 11:22, Simon Cozens wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) writes:
> > familiar. You'll find this in the earlier Exegeses, Piers Cawley's
> > article "Perl 6: Not Just for Damians"
> > (http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/23/damians.html), some of the
> > presentations from t
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-05-12 14:04 (-0400):
> Perl 5:
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> while(<>) {
> s/\w+/WORD/g;
> print;
> }
> Perl 6:
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> while $stdin.getline -> $_ {
Empty <> uses ARGV, not STDIN. It only uses STDIN if
Juerd skribis 2004-05-12 20:15 (+0200):
> But I think I still want to have some non-mutating version of s/// that
> returns the modified string, so that you can just write something like
> print s:gx/\w+/WORD/ for <>;
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
You'd then use $foo.s/// to ge
Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:47:04AM +0100, Matthew Walton wrote:
: For some reason, lots of people don't like it when indentation is
: what's controlling their code structure...
Indentation is a wonderful form of commentary from programmer to
programmer, but its symbology is larg
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:15:36PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: A2 says $*STDIN and $*STDOUT. Has this been changed?
It's $*IN and $*OUT.
: Also, will there no longer be the concept of a selected filehandle?
That is correct.
: I'd hate to have to specify stdin and stdout in throw away scripts.
Just b
Aaron Sherman writes:
> Right off the bat, let me say that I've read A1-6, E7, A12, S3, S6, E1,
> E6 and much of this mailing list, but I'm still not sure that all of
> what I'm going to say is right. Please correct me if it's not.
Did you really need to ask me to? ;-)
> Perl 5:
>
> #!/u
Larry Wall skribis 2004-05-12 11:39 (-0700):
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:15:36PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> : A2 says $*STDIN and $*STDOUT. Has this been changed?
> It's $*IN and $*OUT.
I like this change!
> : I'd hate to have to specify stdin and stdout in throw away scripts.
> Just because there's
Luke Palmer skribis 2004-05-12 12:46 (-0600):
> Well, the IO-objects are iterators, and you use <$iter> to iterate. It
> makes sense that <> would iterate over $*ARGV by default.
$*ARGS?
> my $n = new IO::Socket::INET: LocalPort => 20010, Listen => 5;
I'd like to be able[1] to write
my
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 08:48:07PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Some tools like Irssi and my own PLP tie a handle and then select it, to
: intercept the output of normal print statements. But STDOUT can still be
: specified explicitly if that's where you want things to go.
:
: This makes the tools compa
"Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Well, the IO-objects are iterators, and you use <$iter> to iterate. It
> makes sense that <> would iterate over $*ARGV by default.
When I read this, I instinctively thought to myself: "why does this need to
be global?". And that thought progressed to: "wh
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote:
> Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet.
That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar.
Is it a special type of calling convention, e.g.:
sub s (Rege
I like C<...>
I like it a LOT.
In fact, I'm partial to the idea that it should be usable anywhere:
class {
has $.a;
has $.b;
...;
}
or
my Foo $a = ...; # Ask Bob what this should be -Bill
In all cases, I'm a fan of C<...>
Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-05-12 17:30 (-0400):
> I like C<...> I like it a LOT. In fact, I'm partial to the idea that
> it should be usable anywhere
I agree. It'd make even more of my pseudo code (#perlhelp and
perlmonks.org) valid syntax :).
Juerd
Juerd wrote:
my $n = IO::Socket::INET.new LocalPort => 20010, Listen => 5;
Or, if I'm remembering correctly:
my IO::Socket::INET $n .= new LocalPort => 20010, Listen => 5;
I really hope I'm remembering correctly. Is this turning into the 'look
how great Perl 6 is' thread?
Matthew Walton writes:
> Juerd wrote:
>
> >my $n = IO::Socket::INET.new LocalPort => 20010, Listen => 5;
>
> Or, if I'm remembering correctly:
>
> my IO::Socket::INET $n .= new LocalPort => 20010, Listen => 5;
>
> I really hope I'm remembering correctly. Is this turning into the 'look
> ho
Aaron Sherman writes:
> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:22, Juerd wrote:
>
> > Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
>
> Well, that brings up something that I don't think Larry has covered yet.
> That is, it brings into question what s/// *is* in the grammar.
Well, I imagine it's just a macro ca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) writes:
> is it really that new and scary?
No, but not for the reasons you think. You seem to believe that you're
comparing Perl and a Perl-derived language and pointing out that they're
both like Perl, but it looks like you're comparing two Algol-derived
language
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 11:37:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Aaron Sherman skribis 2004-05-12 17:30 (-0400):
: > I like C<...> I like it a LOT. In fact, I'm partial to the idea that
: > it should be usable anywhere
:
: I agree. It'd make even more of my pseudo code (#perlhelp and
: perlmonks.org) val
Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2004-05-12 20:15 (+0200):
But I think I still want to have some non-mutating version of s/// that
returns the modified string, so that you can just write something like
print s:gx/\w+/WORD/ for <>;
Actually, can't we just use the . for s///?
You'd then use $foo.s///
26 matches
Mail list logo
