> "DB" == Daniel Brockman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DB> You may be right about this. I would be happy if the
DB> standard distribution came with a package that enabled the
DB> hyphenated identifiers syntax in the lexical block:
DB>use hyphenated_identifiers;
DB> Hopefully th
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this idea would need to be worked out in much greater detail. there are
> many different identifiers in perl. would all of them be subject to this
> change? how would a global work if some other module refered to it using
> underscores but your module used
> No sane person would put their braces in different places in
> different parts of their code, so why don't we just say,
> "from now on, you must use brace style X"?
Have you never seen code that's been worked on by several people with
differing tastes in brace positioning and no coding standard?
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> No offense to whoever made that suggestion, but I think there are far
> more people out there with a developed taste for hyphenated
> identifiers than there are people with a thing for using backticks as
> subscript operators.
>
> Do you see the differe
Jan,
> No offense either, but if you are suggesting that
>
> @a[$i-1] + @a[$i+1]
>
> should be interpreted as
>
> @a[$i_1] + @a[$i+1]
>
> then I think it is pretty obvious why this is a really bad idea.
That's a very good example. I think I'm going to have to
change my mind and agree t
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 10:56:27AM +0100, Daniel Brockman wrote:
: That problem is not specific to this feature. For any package
: that changes the syntax, you can ask "what about eval?"
:
: So... what *about* eval? :-)
Always parses with the parser in effect at that point, the same one you'd
ge
HaloO,
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Complex numbers come in two representations: rectilinear coordinates
and polar coordinates:
I think there's also the Riemanian two angle form of the complex
number sphere with r = 0.5 around (0,0,0.5) touching the plane at
the origin (0,0) and reaching up to (0,0,1)
In http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=509413 (in response to
http://perlmonks.org/?node_id=509256), Rob Kinyon wrote that in his
understanding of Perl 6 Roles, anything a role can do the class "doing"
the role should also be able to do.
Is this correct? I'm getting bitten with Class::Trait because som
Hi all,
I think that grep should be renamed to something English and more, well,
semantic. 'Filter' comes to mind as a suggestion. I realise there's a
lot of cultural background (from Unix and Perl 5) that favours 'grep',
but I think it's more important to name the language elements
consistently (
Drat, thought I was sending this to the list:
Begin forwarded message:
On Nov 17, 2005, at 8:31 PM, Ilmari Vacklin wrote:
Hi all,
I think that grep should be renamed to something English and more,
well,
semantic. 'Filter' comes to mind as a suggestion. I realise there's a
lot of cultural
Greetings to everyone. I'm wondering about the => operator, which
still "autoquotes" its first arguement if it's bare, a la barewords.
Synopsis 1 says:
But => still autoquotes any bare identifier to its immediate left
(horizontal whitespace allowed but not comments). The identifier is
not subject
On 11/17/05, Joshua Choi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what does that mean for =>'s signature? What type would be its
> first parameter? Would you call it "&infix:{'=>'}:(Bareword | Any,
> Any)" or something like that? And in any case, would you be able to
> use this autoquoting in or as a sub,
12 matches
Mail list logo
