-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 08:16:24 -0600 (CST)
From: David M. Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Perl 5 Porters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distributive -> and indirect slices
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
>
> > At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
> > >
> > >One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
> > >the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
> > >
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
> The Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the
> vast majority using it at all.
Since when?
> Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have completely rejected
> 5.6, as I discovered last night, and I'd imagine that there are mor
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Branden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) Use $obj.method instead of $obj->method :
>
> > The big question is: why fix what is not broken? Why introduce Javaisms
> > and VBisms to our pretty C/C++-oid Perl? Why brake compatibility with
> > Perl 5 code (a
On 24 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David M Lloyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What's wrong with using both? You could use -> if you're working with a
> > reference to an object, and you could use . if you're working with the
> > object
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:38:58AM -0500, David M. Lloyd wrote:
> > Well, right now in Perl, an object *is* a reference.
>
> No. An object is a referent. Two blessed references can refer to the
> same data; however, that's
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Backtracking is at the heart of Logic Programming (or Declarative
> > Programming, if you like). This is one of the 3 main programming paradigms
> > (along with procedural and functional). The most popular Declarative
> > language is Prolog. It is
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Stephane Payrard wrote:
> Hyper operators with operands of different size are partly covered
> in A3:
>
>
> Hyper operators will also intuit where a dimension is missing from one
> of its arguments, and replicate a scalar value to a list value in that
> dimension. That
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> For those who aren't yet busy reading, you can find it at:
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/03/exegesis3.html
OK, I have a question.
On page 3 you say:
> Because the Perl 6 "diamond" operator can take an arbitrary expression
> as its argument, it'
When you say Unary here:
Binary (low) | Binary (high) |Unary
__|___|_
| |
or | || | |
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Damian Conway wrote:
> To me C means: "the *value* stored in the memory
> implementing this variable cannot be changed". Which doesn't preclude
> rebinding the variable to some *other* memory.
>
> But others have a different (and equally reasonable) interpretation of
> C: "th
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David Nesting wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:37:39AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> : Yep, but in Perl5, this was never very clean or obvious to the
> : casual programmer. Constants have been coming of age in Perl,
> : and they're kind of scary if they're not constant.
>
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, David Nesting wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 09:37:39AM -0500, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> > : Yep, but in Perl5, this was never very clean or obvious to the
> > : casual programmer. Constants have been coming of age in Perl,
> > : a
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, David Whipp wrote:
> . I know it uses valuable characters, but adding C to
> identify a query, and C for an operation does not seem
> unreasonable.
What about 'chomp?' for query but 'chomp' (no decoration) for operation?
I think using ? on method names is kind of cute.
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002, Sam Vilain wrote:
> I can't count the number of times I've had to do something like:
>
> if (defined $foo and $foo ne "bar") { }
>
> to avoid my program writing garbage to STDERR.
Of course you will now be able to say:
if ($foo // "" ne "bar") { }
Right?
- D
<[EMAIL PR
On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Steve Simmons:
> > We have said that perl5 will be *mostly* mechanically translatable into
> > perl6.
>
> And we shall keep saying this until we believe that it is true?
As a Perl user (the kind of guy who uses Perl at work for everything
humanly possibl
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Pretty simple. (For illustrative purposes) To do that with
> continuations, it'd look like:
>
> $cont = take_continuation();
> if ($foo) {
> $foo--;
> invoke($cont);
> }
>
> take_continuation() returns a continuation for the curren
17 matches
Mail list logo
