On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 03:24:30PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:58:51AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: >> I think the issue is that bare vars don't interpolate anymore, but
: >> they still have sigils of their own, so adding to the defaul
On Dec 21, 2007 8:53 AM, John Siracusa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FWIW, my reasoning in this area is based on Laziness: single quotes mean I
> don't have to scan the string looking for interpolated stuff when reading
> code. Double quotes mean I do, and I'm annoyed at the waste of time when
> I
On Dec 21, 2007, at 5:54 , Larry Wall wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 03:24:30PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
: Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: [1] Note, I'm the sort of person that uses "" until I have a
reason otherwise.
Well, me too, but P6 just provides a different set of reasons. :)
T
On 12/21/07 5:54 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
> To you and me, the fact that there are single quotes means there's
> something there to hide. But other people think the other way and
> see double quotes as indicating there's something to interpolate.
> I think PBP comes down on that side, but to me, sing
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:41:54AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> and so on, you might do something like:
>
> with &qq :(c => false) {
I think this can be done with normal currying, something like
temp &circumfix:<" "> := "e:.assuming(:!c);
-ryan
I'm thinking aloud here, so please bear with me.
A number of languages have a "with ..." construct that's intended to
cut down on repetitive typing, by factoring the invocant out of every
method call. Perl 6 also has this, in the form of "given ...":
given $foo.bar.baz {
.dothis();
.do
>
> A number of languages have a "with ..." construct that's intended to
> cut down on repetitive typing,
I hope I will be excused for dragging in the indecency, but it might be
worth looking at the concepts COBOL used to mitigate its verbosity, (e.g.
types defined in a structure that get inherit
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:59:02AM -0500, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: The single-quoted string literal has become such a habit that I frequently
: make mistakes in other C-like languages that use the two types of quotation
: marks to make the character/string distinction.
Yeah, it might be my C backgrou
Larry Wall wrote:
As for the Q base form, it's not really there so much for end-use,
For an operator not intended for end use, it has a remarkable low
Huffman rank...
On Dec 21, 2007 4:51 PM, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > As for the Q base form, it's not really there so much for end-use,
>
> For an operator not intended for end use, it has a remarkable low
> Huffman rank...
>
But since it will be combined with adverbs like
my
Chas. Owens wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 4:51 PM, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
As for the Q base form, it's not really there so much for end-use,
For an operator not intended for end use, it has a remarkable low
Huffman rank...
But since it will be combined with adverbs
Dave Whipp wrote:
> If the construct is used only rarely then it should have a longer name,
Actually, Huffman coding implies that if the construct is used
regularly then it should have a short name. It does not mandate a
long name for rare constructs; it merely says that if a given short
name is
Ryan Richter wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > and so on, you might do something like:
> >
> > with &qq :(c => false) {
>
> I think this can be done with normal currying, something like
>
> temp &circumfix:<" "> := "e:.assuming(:!c);
That handles the specific example that I had in mind, but does
Ryan Richter skribis 2007-12-21 11:52 (-0500):
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:41:54AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > and so on, you might do something like:
> > with &qq :(c => false) {
> I think this can be done with normal currying, something like
> temp &circumfix:<" "> := "e:.assuming(:!c);
H
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 01:51:19PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
>> As for the Q base form, it's not really there so much for end-use,
>
> For an operator not intended for end use, it has a remarkable low Huffman
> rank...
That's because some end-users will want to use Q anyway.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:41:54AM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: I'm wondering if something similar could be done for optional
: arguments - something along the lines of "within the following block,
: assign value V to argument X of routine R by default." This would
: allow for a similar "factorin
John Siracusa wrote:
> On 12/21/07 5:54 AM, Larry Wall wrote:
>> To you and me, the fact that there are single quotes means there's
>> something there to hide. But other people think the other way and
>> see double quotes as indicating there's something to interpolate.
>> I think PBP comes down on
Michael G Schwern skribis 2007-12-21 19:21 (-0800):
> Normally I'd go on the side of the reader and say yes, when writing code you
> should be picky about what quotes you use. But in this case I find that, on
> the writing side, I find it a common annoyance when I chuck a variable into a
> string
Larry Wall wrote:
> But I will make one general remark at the start, which is that we
> want Perl 6 programmer to look at curlies differently than Perl 5
> programmers do. In Perl 5, curlies were overloaded many different
> ways, and rarely did they mean a closure by themselves. In Perl 6,
> it's
19 matches
Mail list logo
