Re: Whither "use English"?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +1200, Sam Vilain wrote: (B: Juerd wrote: (B: >>According to Wikipedia there are around 400 million native English (B: >>speakers and 600 million people who have English as a second language. (B: >>Should the remaining ~5.5 billion humans be exluded from wri

Re: Hyper operator corner case?

I found where Damain explains the rule as basically "replicate dimensions, extend lengths", using an "identity value" when extending the length. On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Thomas Sandlaß wrote: > Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote: > > IIR

Re: subscripts are.... objects?

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:58:29PM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote: : : We blitzed a discussion on #perl 3 minutes ago, reaching the : conclusion that negated subscripts are cool. : : So i was thinking: : : subscripts are objects. I'm all in favor of powerful constructs, but we need to be *really* ca

Re: subscripts are.... objects?

Larry Wall skribis 2005-04-14 10:11 (-0700): > Interestingly, if .{} defaulted to smart matching, ordinary .{'foo'} > would essentially fall out of the samantics of "find me all the keys > that smartmatch "foo", which is only one of them, presuming a hash > that guarantees uniqueness. One could vi

Re: Hyper operator corner case?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:08:21AM -0600, John Williams wrote: : Good point. Another one is: how does the meta_operator determine the : "identity value" for user-defined operators? : : (1,2,3,4,5) >>my_infix_op<< (3,2,4) : : Maybe we should say that the excess length is simply copied unchang

Re: subscripts are.... objects?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 07:29:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote: : So, what's the important downside of all this? The fact that smartmatching a list doesn't slice, but is defined to be array equality with smartmatch of each element in order: if @array ~~ (1,2,3,"many") { say "array can count" } Larry

Macros [was: Whither "use English"?]

Larry Wall wrote: (B> Well, only if you stick to a standard dialect. As soon as you start (B> defining your own macros, it gets a little trickier. (B (BInteresting, I hadn't considered that. (B (BHaving a quick browse through some of the discussions about macros, many (Bof the macros I saw[

Re: should we change [^a-z] to <-[a..z]> instead of <-[a-z]>?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 05:21:05PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Given that we're trying to get rid of special > exceptions, and - in character classes is weird, and we already > use .. for ranges everywhere else, and nobody is going to put a > repeated character into a character class, I'm wondering

Re: should we change [^a-z] to <-[a..z]> instead of <-[a-z]>?

On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Patrick R. Michaud wrote: So, <[a.z]> matches "a", ".", and "z", while <[a..z]> matches characters "a" through "z" inclusive. I was going to say that that was inconsistent, but since you never need to repeat a letter in a character class, well, I guess it isn't.