On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
>
> Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
> compile time, but often not. Certainly a subroutine cannot determine
> what context it was called i
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
> >
> > Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
> > compile time, but often not
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:17:50PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
: > >
: > > Lazily, for the most part.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : And how does all this combine with the notion of context?
: >
: > Lazily, for the most part. In some cases we can determine context at
: > compile time, but often not
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 12:42, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:45:45AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 12:17:19PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Certainly a subroutine cannot determine
> : > what context it was called in until it's actually called, unless we
> :
Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
with initializer so one could write:
my $a, $b, $c;
instead of
my ($a, $b, $c);
Most people use scoping functions as the top most function of the
corresponding statement AST s
StÃphane Payrard writes:
>
> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
> with initializer so one could write:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> instead of
>
> my ($a, $b, $c);
Hmm, but that kills the Perl 5 ability to do conci
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>
> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
> with initializer so one could write:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> instead of
>
> my ($a, $b, $c);
Too bad t
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 09:42:30AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> Anyway, I don't profess to have thought deeply about type inferencing.
> But I do know that I don't want to turn Perl 6 into ML just yet...
>
> Larry
>
Speaking of ML, it appears to me that Perl6 rules are a mechanism that
can act
> "SP" == Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SP> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>>
>> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
>> would allow to drop parentheses when not used in conjunction
>> with initializer so one could w
Luke Palmer wrote:
We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
parentheses in the standard swap:
$x, $y = $y, $x;
$x, $y <== $y, $x;
-- Rod Adams
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:09:24PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "SP" == Stéphane Payrard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> SP> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 03:56:06AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
> >>
> >> Giving scoping functions the status of list operators
> >> would allow to drop pare
Rod Adams writes:
> Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> >We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
> >parentheses in the standard swap:
> >
> > $x, $y = $y, $x;
> >
> $x, $y <== $y, $x;
Heh, oh yeah. I guess I wasn't so off suggesting <-, then.
Well, there's half the problem.
> "LP" == Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LP> Rod Adams writes:
>> Luke Palmer wrote:
>>
>> >We have discussed making equals low precedence enough to eliminate the
>> >parentheses in the standard swap:
>> >
>> > $x, $y = $y, $x;
>> >
>> $x, $y <== $y, $x;
LP> He
Luke Palmer wrote:
Now we just need to determine if 'my' can leave its post as a unary declarator.
Don't see why not... If you ever need it unary, you can just put the ()
back in.
The question becomes which is more common:
Scoping a single variable in a list context, or scoping several
variab
Uri Guttman wrote:
that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
unary my problem. :)
Stop misusing "y'all" before this Texan has to hurt you.
And y'all wonder why we hate you damn yankees. Can't even speak properly
up there.
:-)
We should instead have a list attribu
> "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
>> unary my problem. :)
>>
>>
RA> Stop misusing "y'all" before this Texan has to hurt you.
RA> And y'all wonder why we hate you dam
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
> >> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
> >> unary my problem. :)
> >>
> RA> Stop misusing "y'all" before t
Luke Palmer wrote:
> I don't think it's a good idea to make a new low precedence assignment.
> Let's say we made it <-. Does that imply that there is also
> low-precedence binding :<- and compile-time binding ::<- ? Those don't
> look right. I think we're weighing making good ol' assignment low
> "PRM" == Patrick R Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRM> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:54:20AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "RA" == Rod Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
RA> Uri Guttman wrote:
>> >> that fixes Stéphane's problem with my yall proposal. and yall solves the
20 matches
Mail list logo
