HaloO,
Luke wrote:
> Isn't the point of lexical scoping so that you don't have to worry
> whether somebody else called something the same thing you did? I can
> picture this:
>
>multi combine (Any $x, Any $y) { ZCombinator.new($x, $y) }
>multi combine (@x, @y) { ZList.new([ @x, @
HaloO,
I'm still contemplating how to get rid of the :: in the
ternary and make :: unequivocally available for a type
sigil and as a binary infix for symbol lookup.
Here's a possible solution:
1) ?? becomes a binary operator that behaves as follows:
a) it evaluates its lhs in boolean context
(Sorry for replying _so_ late...)
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Larry Wall wrote:
I kinda like Autrijus's idea that "meta" just means "guts". In
classical Greek, "meta" just means "with". The fancy philosophical
meaning of "aboutness" isn't there, but is a backformation from
terms such as metaphysics.
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:07:59PM -0500, David Nicol wrote:
> Does this mean that we have to implement perl4 compatability?
>
> perl5 -e 'no 5; print "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"'
It's not valid perl 4:
$ perl4 -e 'no 5; print "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"'
syntax error in file /tmp/perl-em47tij at line 1, next
Thomas Sandlass skribis 2005-09-05 14:38 (+0200):
>b) if this is true, ?? evaluates its rhs such that it
> can't be undef
But
$foo ?? undef // 1
then is a problem.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution
Thomas Sandlass wrote:
I'm still contemplating how to get rid of the :: in the
ternary
>
Comments?
I believe that the single most important feature of the ternary operator is
that it is ternary. That is, unlike an if-else sequence, it's impossible to
leave out the "else" in a ternary operat
Juerd wrote:
However, in general, chained operators like comma, junction constructors
and infix zip, don't get an op= variant.
>
There's something nice in
$foo = 42;
$foo |= .bar for @quux;
as an alternative for
$foo = any 42, @quux>>.bar;
though
I had always assumed (e.g. in
Hi,
quick questions:
constant pi = 3; # works
# Is &pi package- or lexically-scoped?
our constant pi = 3; # legal?
my constant pi = 3; # legal?
This is consistent with "sub foo", "our sub foo", and "my sub foo",
which are all allowed.
--Ingo
--
Patrick suggested:
> At OSCON I was also thinking that it'd be really nice to get rid of
> the :: in the ternary and it occurred to me that perhaps we could use
> something like '?:' as the 'else' token instead:
>
>(cond) ?? (if_true) ?: (if_false)
>
> However, I'll freely admit that I hadn'
On 9/5/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrick suggested:
>
> > At OSCON I was also thinking that it'd be really nice to get rid of
> > the :: in the ternary and it occurred to me that perhaps we could use
> > something like '?:' as the 'else' token instead:
> >
> >(cond) ?
On 9/5/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> quick questions:
>
> constant pi = 3; # works
> # Is &pi package- or lexically-scoped?
>
> our constant pi = 3; # legal?
>
> my constant pi = 3; # legal?
Yep. Bare constant is packa
On 9/5/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Sandlass skribis 2005-09-05 14:38 (+0200):
> >b) if this is true, ?? evaluates its rhs such that it
> > can't be undef
>
> But
>
> $foo ?? undef // 1
>
> then is a problem.
Yeah. Hmm, but I kinda like the look of ?? //, and I d
Luke wrote:
> Yeah. Hmm, but I kinda like the look of ?? //, and I don't like the
> overloading of :: in that way anymore. So it's possible just to add
> a ternary ?? // in addition to, and unrelated to (from the parser's
> perspective), the regular //.
Bad idea. This useful construct would t
On 9/6/05, Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Hmm, but I kinda like the look of ?? //, and I don't like the
> > overloading of :: in that way anymore. So it's possible just to add
> > a ternary ?? // in addition to, and unrelated to (from the parser's
> > per
Luke wrote:
Not that being explicit is always a bad thing:
$val = some_cond()
?? ($arg1 // $arg1_default)
// ($arg2 // $arg2_default)
No. What's a bad thing is creating new linguistic traps for when people
inevitably forget to be explicit.
And I question y
15 matches
Mail list logo
