"Oh, it's got lots of Japanese in it, I'd better read it..." :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> Some will argue that since English doesn't have a grammatical
> postfix topicalizer like Japanese, we should stick with something
> like more English-like:
>
> $x = (.a + .b + .c given $foo)
I think I'm missing something here. We have "given" as a perfectly good
topicaliser. Now, I remember harping on a while ago about generalizing the
idea of some control structures returning values, such as $x = if $a { $b }
else { $c };
Now if we do generalise that, we get
$x = given $foo { .a + .b + .c };
which gives us the topic-in-front form, the "given" which is the standard way
of declaring the topic, and it's all nice.
> my Dog $dog wa= .new;
Urgh. This reads like you're topicalising a $dog, assigning to it and
acting on it all at the same time. Too many particles!
my Dog $inu wa ga o new desu; # ? :)
> So you could usefully say something like
>
> $modthingie wa %= .modulus;
Hrm.
given($modthingie) %= .modulus;
might work, but it relies on a few pieces of underlying magic, none of which I
believe to be over-the-top in themselves but taken together may leave a bad
taste:
control structures return a value, as above
given takes an optional block, purely setting the topic if no block
the topic persists throughout a statement
> if operator it is.
I don't think it's an operator so much as a function. It sets the
topic and, depending on how things turn out, returns either void or
the topic again.
--
teco < /dev/audio
- Ignatios Souvatzis
