Hi all. I missed out on the original RFC process; it was over before
I even heard of perl6. Anyway, there's something I want to contribute to the
Perl community. I've had an idea about control structures which I've never
seen anywhere else, so I guess I'm the inventor :). I hope this
These are mostly not my ideas (except activate); hopefully not too
many of them have already been used.
In the same list as "last", "next", and "redo", we should also have
- deeper (works with nest -- cf. II: loop)
- yield and resume (for co-routines)
Also u
Here's the next part to the Control Structures message I sent before.
The next part is to apply the same idea to loop. Please note that
this syntax conflicts with stuff already in Perl, but it's a bit clearer what
I mean when I do it this way; the question is, do we scrap my i
Quoted from "Seven Deadly Sins of Introductory Programming Language
Design" [1] by Linda McIver and Damian Conway:
We have shown over one thousand novice programming students
the C/C++ expression:
"the quick brown fox" + "jumps over the lazy dog"
and asked them what they believe
Andy Wardley wrote:
Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
and string concatenation ...
Isn't there some nifty Unicode operator perl6 could enlist? ;)
How about concatenating adjacent operands? ANSI C does this
with string constants and it works very well. It would become
Andy Wardley wrote:
> Quoted from "Seven Deadly Sins of Introductory Programming Language
> Design" [1] by Linda McIver and Damian Conway:
>
> over one thousand novice programming students ...:
>
> "the quick brown fox" + "jumps over the lazy dog"
>
>... they believed that the + s
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:05:26AM +1100, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
> --
> given ($this) {
> when $that_happens { "Have a party" }
> when $that_doesnt_happen { "Sing" }
> all {
> # Do something
> }
>
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:05:26 +1100 (EST)
> From: "Timothy S. Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Hi all. I missed out on the original RFC process
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:37:51 +1100 (EST)
> From: "Timothy S. Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Here's the next part to the Control Structures me
Sorry for the one-month-old response, but this message fell between the
cracks and I was just reviewing all my old new mail
In a message dated Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Me writes:
> > Somebody fairly recently recommended some decent fixed-width
> typefaces.
> > I think it may have been MJD, but I can
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:46:21 +1100 (EST)
> From: "Timothy S. Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> These are mostly not my ideas (except activate);
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:19:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
> and string concatenation, depending on the type of the operand
> on the left?
>
> I realise the answer is "probably not", given the number/string
> ambiguity of Perl varia
On Thu 14 Nov, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:19:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
> > Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
> > and string concatenation, depending on the type of the operand
> > on the left?
There have been times when I have wondered i
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:10:07PM +, Richard Proctor wrote:
> There have been times when I have wondered if string concatination could be
> done without any operator at all. Simply the placement of two things
> next to each other as in $foo $bar or $foo$bar would silently concatenate
> them.
On 2002-11-14 at 16:47:15, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> "string concatenation operator - please stop"
> http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language@;perl.org/msg06710.html
BTW, the first link there - to the bikeshed story - is broken.
This is the correct link:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO88
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Before this starts up again, I hereby sentence all potential repliers to
first read:
"string concatenation operator - please stop"
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language@;perl.org/msg06710.html
The bike shed thing is like Godwin's Law. Only I don't know
which side
At 5:57 PM -0500 11/14/02, Ken Fox wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Before this starts up again, I hereby sentence all potential repliers to
first read:
"string concatenation operator - please stop"
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language@;perl.org/msg06710.html
The bike shed thing is like
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan@;sidhe.org]
> At 5:57 PM -0500 11/14/02, Ken Fox wrote:
> >
> >Wasn't one of the main problems with Jarkko's juxtaposition
> >proposal that it would kill indirect objects? Have we chased
> >our tail on this subject after the colon became required for
> >indirect objec
Luke Palmer asked:
When junctions collapse,
Sigh, not another one of those dreadful reality TV shows:
When animals attack
When drivers collide
When junctions collapse
Next we'll get:
When mailing lists explode
When threads perpetuate
When Piers summarize
When Larrys make puns
;-)
Micholas Clarke asked:
If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
Absolutely nothing. And perfectly legal. You can even call that
20 matches
Mail list logo
