Recently on perlmonks, at http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=375255,
someone (DWS, actually) brought up the common error of expecting x (in
particular, listy x, which is xx in perl6) to not create aliases. What
he was doing in particular, I don't have any expectation of making it
work, but
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
> > On Saturday, 17 July, 2004 01:53 Sat, Jul 17, 2004, Juerd wrote:
> >
> > Do we have a :) operator yet?
>
> It's an adverbial modifier on the core expression type. Does
> nothing, but it acts as a line terminator when nothing but
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 05:36:58PM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
> truncate Vs append would be infered from usage (assign => truncate). One
> might be able to infer read Vs write in a similar way -- open the file based
> on the first access; re-open it (behind the scenes) if we write it after
> reading
On Sun, Jul 18, 2004 at 08:39:09PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> Case 1:
> So I wanted to do a read/write scan, so I create my TextFile, start
> reading in data, so the file is opened for reading. Then, I come to the
> part where I want to update something, so I do a write command. Suddenly
> the f
On Fri, 2004-07-16 at 12:10 -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Half of all numbers in [0, Inf) are in the range [Inf/2, Inf). Which
> > collapses to the range [Inf, Inf).
>
> It's not that simple. By that reasoning, 10% of all numbers in
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 03:37:12PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
> I think part of the "mental jam" (at least with me), is that the
> read/write, exclusive, etc, are very critical to the act of opening the
> file, not only an after the fact restriction on what I can do later. If
> I cannot open a fil
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07.25, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If I cannot open a file for writing (permissions, out of space,
> > write locked, etc), I want to know the instant I attempt to open it
> > as such, _not_ when I later attempt to write to it. Having al
Hello,
I wish to be consistent with shall, so `.' is literal dot in double
strings. I prefer "$file.ext" or "${file}.ext".
For method calls ``$()'' could be used: "$($foo.bar)".
Perhaps, what does "${foo.bar}" mean?
Best regards
Larry Wall wrote:
Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
At the moment I'm inclined to say that the *only* interpolators in
double quotes are:
\n, \t etc.
$foo
@foo[$i]
%foo{$k}
{
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : my $d="a";
> : print "--$d--{my $d = "b" }--$d--\n";
>
> Yes, that is correct.
I'm afraid things like this will keep many popular editors and IDEs
from implementing perl6 support...
-- Johan
Matt Diephouse skribis 2004-07-20 20:06 (-0400):
> This is close to the new form() syntax as well, which could be
> considered a plus. I for one won't complain about adding the good things
> from Ruby back in to Perl.
Ehm, no, that means that if you want to interpolate something into the
format
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Damian Conway wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > Actually, I've been rethinking this whole mess since last week, and
> > am seriously considering cranking up the Ruby-o-meter here just a tad.
[snip]
> I can't say I'm keen on making {...} special in strings. I felt that the
> $(...)
David Storrs wrote:
On Sat, Jul 17, 2004 at 06:23:50PM -0400, Austin Hastings wrote:
On Saturday, 17 July, 2004 01:53 Sat, Jul 17, 2004, Juerd wrote:
Do we have a :) operator yet?
It's an adverbial modifier on the core expression type. Does
nothing, but it acts as a line terminator when nothing but
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Robin Berjon wrote:
> >>>Do we have a :) operator yet?
[snip]
> We could mimick XQuery where it is the comment terminator.
Well, since it's *optimistically* smiling, it could turn off warnings for
the statement it refers to.
Michele
--
> [...] is like requiring to play te
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Surely you mean [EMAIL PROTECTED] instead of 0..Inf
I think the iterator implicit in array slicing should, and could, be
smart enough to return when there's nothing more to iterate. Considering
the following code:
@foo = (1, 2, 3);
@bar = @foo[1..Inf];
@bar should
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Robin Berjon wrote:
>
> > >>>Do we have a :) operator yet?
> [snip]
> > We could mimick XQuery where it is the comment terminator.
>
> Well, since it's *optimistically* smiling, it could turn off warnings for
> the statement it refer
--- "Adam D. Lopresto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The modifier to turn off warnings on a line would be ;), winking at
> us to let us know it's up to something.
I wondered about paren-after-semi, and thought about C. Which
led me to C<@array[a;b;c]>, then to (a;b;c;), which let me to this:
Given
"David Storrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (apparently may days ago):
> Race condition: what if something deletes the file between the moment
> that perl closes the file and the moment that it re-opens it? Is
> there a cross-platform way to do an atomic reopen?
I'm not sure if you need to close it
"David Storrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
># Print file, inefficiently
> print $default.readline for 1..$default.lines;
print it efficiently:
print $default;
> # Append a line
> $rw .= "an additional line\n";
$rw ~= "\n" unless $rw.chars[-1] eq "\n";
$rw ~= "an additional l
On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 14:04, David Storrs wrote:
> Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is
> reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and should be integrated into
> the core for efficiency.
You must have amazingly fast hard drives.
-- c
--- chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 14:04, David Storrs wrote:
>
> > Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is
> > reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and should be integrated
> into
> > the core for efficiency.
>
> You must have amazingly fast
- Original Message -
From: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
> Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is
> reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and should be integrated into
> the core for
JOSEPH RYAN writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:04 pm
> Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
>
> > Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is
> > reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and should
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2004 2:48 pm
Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
>> JOSEPH RYAN writes:
> >
> > How would integrating this in the core make it more efficient? Core
> > or not, I'd see something like this being im
- Original Message -
From: James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:03 am
Subject: xx and re-running
> Recently on perlmonks, at
> http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=375255,
> someone (DWS, actually) brought up the common error of expecting x
> (in
> particula
JOSEPH RYAN writes:
> When I think about your description of xxx, I
> summarized it in my head as "Call a coderef a certain
> number of times, and then collect the results."
> That's pretty much what map is, except that xxx is
> infix and map is prefix.
>
>
> @results = { ... } xxx 10
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:37:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> We allowed/required @foo to interpolate in Perl 5, and it catches a
> certain number of people off guard regularly, including yours truly.
> So I can argue [EMAIL PROTECTED] both ways.
Currently @foo[] is a syntax error. maybe "@foo[]"
Larry Wall wrote:
No Yes
-- ---
@foo@foo[1]
%bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
$foo.bar$foo.bar()
&foo&foo(1)
I may have missed it, but what are the contexts in these cases? I'm
thinking the first two are easily scalar. Are the second list
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 04:37:29PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> No Yes
> -- ---
> @foo@foo[1]
> %bar%bar{"a"} or %bar«a»
> $foo.bar$foo.bar()
> &foo &foo(1)
>
> In this worldview, $foo is an exception only because it doesn't natural
Luke Palmer wrote:
JOSEPH RYAN writes:
- Original Message -
From: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
Second, I would suggest that it NOT go in a library...this is
reasonably serious under-the-hood magic and shoul
- Original Message -
From: Dan Hursh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:07 pm
Subject: Re: Why do users need FileHandles?
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > JOSEPH RYAN writes:
> >
> >>- Original Message -
> >>From: David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>Date: Monday, Ju
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on July 22, 2004:
Even more philosophical is "what is core?"
I believe the standard definition is "Anything I want to use goes in
the core; anything everyone else wants goes wherever there's room
left over." ...
So making it "go in the core" may just mean th
David Green writes:
> >So making it "go in the core" may just mean that it's
> >on the list of recommended modules to install.
>
> Does that mean having to "use Some::Module" to use it?
Not necessarily. Glop, on which I'm doing a presentation at OSCON (have
to plug it sometime ;-), makes use of
33 matches
Mail list logo
