coming from a c++ background, I constantly type break instead of last only
to be scolded by the syntax checker. If my faubles result in incorrectly
executing program ( a mysterious error at that!) then I and many other C++
programmers will waste a lot of time hunting down a trivial bug. I
unders
Since Perl is changing from -> to . (a change I welcome). It might be
interesting to ask ourselves if there is any benefit from langauges like C++
or OCL that use both the -> and the .
>From OCL's point of view the -> is used for "meta" level things such as
iterations over collections. The . is
What about unless? Since we are giving els to loops, shouldn't we upgrade
unless as well? That would be really weird if it were not upgraded.
Tanton
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Scott Duff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Allison Randal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Aaron Sherman" <[EMAIL
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
> > it introduces subtle bug potentials.
> >
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
> > () == 0 # true?
>
> I believe the last two cases should be:
>
> (7,)== 1
> (,) == 0
>
> B
> > This kind of clever magic always makes me nervous:
> > it introduces subtle bug potentials.
> >
> > (7,8,9) == 3 # true
> > (7,8) == 2 # true
> > (7) == 1 # false
>
> Why is this one false? I'd expect it to be true just as the others.
(7) == 7
why? Otherwise, we couldn't use
> How about this:
>
>$_ # current topic
>$__ # outer topic
>$___ # outer outer topic
>
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, that is impossible to read correctly
without having to move the cursor and count how many underscores exist.
It seems to me, that in English, it i
Has there been any discussion about having an "any" type. Something such as:
my any $x = "Hello";
$x = 17.3;
$x = Foo.new;
I realize that this can be accomplished with an untyped variable, but there may be a
reason not to do that. Namely, there most probably will be some sort of pragma like
"
> Damian Conway wrote:
> > or even a arrayed form, when the corresponding index was implicit:
> >
> > (@foo,@bar,@zap) := part [/foo/, /bar/, /zap/], @source;
>
> That's kinda nifty. But admittedly, it's not to-die-for necessary, if
> I'm the only one fond of it.
I think this makes a nice
> As I said, I wasn't sure whether or not I was being serious at this point.
>
> > > > method bar($x, $y) {
> > > > method bar($z) { # note 1
> > > Oh, bringing in multimethods Just Isn't Fair.
> >
> > Those are multimethods? Migod, I feel like a person who's just
> > discovered for t
> The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
> Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
> fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda -> fn). It
> would be easy to simply rename car/cdr to first/rest, but that loses
> the huffman natu
10 matches
Mail list logo
