On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:12:02 -0400, Mark A. Biggar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually if we define |...| at all, I'd prefer it mean abs(), its usual
mathmatical meaning.
I agree. I think || is just confusing.
I thought about $blockname <= { ... }, but <= is obviously taken, as is <==
So here's
Juerd wrote:
Juerd skribis 2005-05-06 18:24 (+0200):
|AVAILABLE any()
We can use this for labels:
|foo| for ... {
while ... {
...;
next foo if ...;
}
}
It'll confuse the heck out of Ruby coders, but I do like this syntax. It
makes
On May 4, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Thomas Sandlaß wrote:
Aaron Sherman wrote:
If we agree that the first say should print 7, then we must conclude
that either we've changed the value of undef to 7, or we've created a
circular reference.
In my view of refs 7 is printed, indeed. But I've difficulty to
unde
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-06 18:22 (-0700):
> (But then you need to put postfix first in the heading.)
The heading uses junctions, and junctions are unordered ;)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:24:00PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: {} href|closure hash (deref+)subscript (no ws)
: {}? (clash) AVAILABLE (ws)
s/AVAILABLE/statement block/
Actually, I'd try to find a way to combine all the paired ws-dependent
entries onto the same lin
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:43:07AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: > :: namespace ternary
:
: That's "class sigil" in term position. Separating namespaces never
: have preceding whitespace, so they're always part of some larger term.
Really more like a package sigil, which can be u
"Juerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You both use "iff". What does that mean?
I believe it's to be read "if and only if".
Jonathan
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 02:04:45AM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Juerd skribis 2005-05-07 1:23 (+0200):
: > Perl 5's perlop says: "It cannot short circuit, of course." Can
: > someone explain why it cannot?
:
: I was confused. It is entirely obvious why it can't.
On the other hand, one(...) semantics ca
Juerd skribis 2005-05-06 18:24 (+0200):
> |AVAILABLE any()
We can use this for labels:
|foo| for ... {
while ... {
...;
next foo if ...;
}
}
It'll confuse the heck out of Ruby coders, but I do like this syntax. It
makes labels s
Juerd skribis 2005-05-07 1:23 (+0200):
> Perl 5's perlop says: "It cannot short circuit, of course." Can
> someone explain why it cannot?
I was confused. It is entirely obvious why it can't.
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http:/
Trewth Seeker wrote:
> Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> > Trewth Seeker wrote:
> > > In this case, we are dealing with '^^', a meaningless
> > > unpronounceable symbol.
Caret caret.
> > > Oh, but wait ... we also spell it 'xor',
When reading code, it's probably read as xor, but when discussing syntax
it
Here's the same message, with less annoying word wrapping. (Especially
useful for mailers that show different levels of quotes in different
colours.)
Trewth Seeker wrote:
> Mark A. Biggar wrote:
> > Trewth Seeker wrote:
> > > I see here another case of a common erroneous approach to
> > > problem
Oops, this should have been redirected to perl6-language@perl.org, so
I'm doing that now.
--- Trewth Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:15:37 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Trewth Seeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pugs 6.2.0 released.
> To: "Mark A. Biggar" <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 08:19:05AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
: "open" as a verb is extremely ambiguous. In dictionary searches I see as
: many as 19 definitions just for the verb form.
Well, sure, but also need to take Perl history into account, where dwimmy
open is considered something of a lia
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:46:58PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: According to S03, the yada operator "complains bitterly" when used. In
: #perl6, we can't agree on what that means. Please help. Does it die,
: warn or fail?
:
: 18:46 < Corion> Juerd: "Complain bitterly" is "output a warning" to me.
: 18:46
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-06 11:07 (-0700):
> But then how do you know if you just want to pass one as a scalar and
> not iterate it?
Assuming =:
=iterator # the iterator itself, passable (autoreffing)
$=iterator # get one element
@=iterator # get remaining elements, laz
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 11:25:31AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Any Object does Hash, and treats any argumentless method as a potential
: hash key.
I should also point out that the main reason for this is to allow
easier translation of Perl 5 idioms to Perl 6 without having to guess
whether $foo con
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:49:44PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:43 (-0600):
: > Why the %!@ would you ignore that!? :-)
:
: I hate my brain. Now I wonder if Bool.does(Hash). Does it? :)
Any Object does Hash, and treats any argumentless method as a potential
hash key. S
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 12:04 (-0600):
> : I propose that reduce become a metaoperator that can be applied to
> : any binary operator and turns it syntactically into a list operator.
Thanks for the quick reply.
20:14 < pmichaud> oh yes, Luke has the relevant quote
20:15 < pmichaud> listop,
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:04:16PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In #perl6, we can't decide what it should be. There are good arguments
> > for listop precedence ([+] 1..9) and for unary precedence ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED] <
> > $bar). My preference is l
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:31:43PM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: > I'm sticking to non-words here, as I mentally parse not and true as
: > single-arg subs, single-arg subs as unary operators, etcetera. I can't
: > help it, but I have absolutely no idea how to determine the difference.
: > Is it &prefi
> Or perhaps we should by default restrict short ones to simple
> operators, since it's pretty obvious that [+] is doing *some* kind
> of addition, while [EMAIL PROTECTED]&$*#«=] is not quite so obvious. In other
> words, we apply some kind of Huffman amplification to the metaoperator,
> where the
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 07:54:09PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-06 10:37 (-0700):
: > Alternately, we could make =$foo an lvalue, but ==> =$foo is a bit strange,
: > and people will think it means to write to filehandle $foo. Or we could
: > force people to say something evil l
Matisse,
Just one note before we take this off-list:
Maybe this isn't the right place to keep discussing this, so I'll take
pointers to other places. I'm very worried about the continued
viability of Perl for major projects and am trying connect with other
people and see what can be done about i
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:51:58PM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: I understand that the reduce [] operator will have its standard forms
: ([+], [<], etc) which will be immediately recognizable just like all
: the other 3-char operators (==>, etc) will be. I'm just concerned
: about the extended form an
On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the precedence of a reduction operator?
>
> Pugs currently implements it at the symbolic unary level, like the
> filetest operators. But that's just one of many guesses.
>
> In #perl6, we can't decide what it should be. There are good arguments
What is the precedence of a reduction operator?
Pugs currently implements it at the symbolic unary level, like the
filetest operators. But that's just one of many guesses.
In #perl6, we can't decide what it should be. There are good arguments
for listop precedence ([+] 1..9) and for unary precede
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-06 10:37 (-0700):
> Alternately, we could make =$foo an lvalue, but ==> =$foo is a bit strange,
> and people will think it means to write to filehandle $foo. Or we could
> force people to say something evil like ==> my $foo is Iterator.
I would personally not mind havin
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:26:26AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: In other words, Perl 6 is open to the possibility of such an IDE, and
: is going to provide the machinery necessary to build a really good
: one, but I doubt it will become a development milestone.
I think that, just as Perl 1 built in
On 5/6/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:26:10PM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
> : > : Does this mean that @{foo()} can be written as @ foo()?
> : >
> : > I would prefer not. Use foo()[] instead.
> :
> : Does this mean that some constructs in Perl are parsed immedia
Thanks for your comments - I was afraid I'd get flamed for suggesting
something wasn't perfect about Perl :-)
On May 6, 2005, at 9:31 AM, Fagyal Csongor wrote:
IMHO subversioning does not have too much to do with the language
itself. Subversioning operates on files. An IDE might integrate some
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:26:10PM -0400, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: > : Does this mean that @{foo()} can be written as @ foo()?
: >
: > I would prefer not. Use foo()[] instead.
:
: Does this mean that some constructs in Perl are parsed immediately
: (such as foo() ...) and some are deferred (such as t
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:45:57AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > When piping to a scalar, I assume its reftype will determine what will
: > happen. But what if the scalar is undef? Is it then assumed to want to
: > behave like an array?
:
: If you're p
> I'm sticking to non-words here, as I mentally parse not and true as
> single-arg subs, single-arg subs as unary operators, etcetera. I can't
> help it, but I have absolutely no idea how to determine the difference.
> Is it &prefix: or just ¬? I have no idea. I do know that it's
> &infix:, not &x.
> : Does this mean that @{foo()} can be written as @ foo()?
>
> I would prefer not. Use foo()[] instead.
Does this mean that some constructs in Perl are parsed immediately
(such as foo() ...) and some are deferred (such as the [ in [>>+^<<]
...)? I would think this potentially makes a difference
Larry Wall skribis 2005-05-06 10:19 (-0700):
> If someone wants to use an array, I don't see why they wouldn't just use @.
Because it's an argument of a very generic function, and it could just
as well be a subref or hashref.
sub mypipe($receiver, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) { @list ==> $receiver }
>
Patrick R. Michaud skribis 2005-05-06 12:20 (-0500):
> Ummm, what about C and C ?
I'm sticking to non-words here, as I mentally parse not and true as
single-arg subs, single-arg subs as unary operators, etcetera. I can't
help it, but I have absolutely no idea how to determine the difference.
Is it
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:55:47PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:45 (-0600):
: > > How do you pipe to an array returned by a sub? ==> @ foo()?
: > Well, you'd have to be piping into a returned array ref, because you
: > can't pipe into the list the sub returns. So I think
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:35:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Which things can receive?
:
: If I recall things correctly, we already have these:
:
: sub # slurpy list
: arrary
: hash
:
: Would it make sense to add, for example,
:
: filehandle # write
:
: It may not, as it's n
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 06:24:00PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> To try and make it easier to pick (ASCII) operators, a simple table of
> what's given away and what's available. Please let me know if there are
> any mistakes.
>
> If anyone knows how to fill in the "???" parts, be my guest!
> [...]
>
>
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 11:04 (-0600):
> Because we're marking all of our singular nouns with $, and you have
> to admit, the $ sigil in perl code is much more common than @ and %.
> What good is a noun marker if you mark some of your verbs with it too?
But verbing doesn't weird language a
On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:43 (-0600):
> > > !not none() ???
> > Nope. In order to create those, you just need to say none(). There
> > is no operator form.
>
> Do we have postfix ! for factorials, or is it available?
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:45 (-0600):
> > How do you pipe to an array returned by a sub? ==> @ foo()?
> Well, you'd have to be piping into a returned array ref, because you
> can't pipe into the list the sub returns. So I think it's ==>
> @{foo()}
> > Off topic, but I just thought of this
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:43 (-0600):
> Thanks! Here's an annotated bit for each ?.
Only the triple-questionmarks were meant as questions. I should have
picked a better meta-operator for AVAILABLE?. But apparently, even
though I didn't mean to ask so many questions, there still are answer
On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to S03, the yada operator "complains bitterly" when used. In
> #perl6, we can't agree on what that means. Please help. Does it die,
> warn or fail?
>
> 18:46 < Corion> Juerd: "Complain bitterly" is "output a warning" to me.
> 18:46 < Juerd> I
Luke Palmer skribis 2005-05-06 10:43 (-0600):
> Why the %!@ would you ignore that!? :-)
I hate my brain. Now I wonder if Bool.does(Hash). Does it? :)
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
According to S03, the yada operator "complains bitterly" when used. In
#perl6, we can't agree on what that means. Please help. Does it die,
warn or fail?
18:46 < Corion> Juerd: "Complain bitterly" is "output a warning" to me.
18:46 < Juerd> It's "die" to me
18:46 < Odin-> Juerd: Hmm. I'd read it a
On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When piping to a scalar, I assume its reftype will determine what will
> happen. But what if the scalar is undef? Is it then assumed to want to
> behave like an array?
If you're piping into a scalar without parens, I think it should
always become an ar
On 5/6/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To try and make it easier to pick (ASCII) operators, a simple table of
> what's given away and what's available. Please let me know if there are
> any mistakes.
Thanks! Here's an annotated bit for each ?.
> If anyone knows how to fill in the "???" pa
Which things can receive?
If I recall things correctly, we already have these:
sub # slurpy list
arrary
hash
Would it make sense to add, for example,
filehandle # write
It may not, as it's not reversible like the others are: a filehandle in
list context doesn't slurp. It
Matisse,
Will Perl 6 help us have tools that are as good or better than the
ones available for Java, C#, etc?
I've been using Perl since 1994 and for the past several years have
used it to build a number of complex mod_perl applications. I love Perl.
The following may be considered heresy, but
On 5/6/05, J Matisse Enzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've become scared that if Perl is to continue to be viable for large,
> complex, multi-developer projects that the tools need to serious
> catch-up with what is available for Java, for example. Things like:
>
>- Refactoring Support (see
To try and make it easier to pick (ASCII) operators, a simple table of
what's given away and what's available. Please let me know if there are
any mistakes.
If anyone knows how to fill in the "???" parts, be my guest!
\W+ Term (pre|circ) Operator (post|in)
`AVAILABLE
Will Perl 6 help us have tools that are as good or better than the ones
available for Java, C#, etc?
I've been using Perl since 1994 and for the past several years have
used it to build a number of complex mod_perl applications. I love
Perl.
The following may be considered heresy, but I belie
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:23:49PM +1000, Stuart Cook wrote:
> On 5/6/05, Stuart Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (snip) As long as each meta-operator
> > explicitly knows what type of regular operator it accepts (and
> > produces), there shouldn't be any problems with ambiguity.
> >
>
> Havin
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 15:15, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Dash this all on the rocks if you want, but understand that this is not
> an off-the-cuff reply, but something that I've spent a lot of time
> mulling over
[...]
> First off, IMHO, open should be an alias for a closure-wrapped
> constructor, like
On 5/6/05, Brad Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> <$*IN> ==> process() ==> print;
>
> This A06 example got me thinking.
> Could non-variadic subrountines in a pipeline be useful?
>
> A single arg sub or block could be a map without the "map":
>
> <$*IN> ==> &process ==> print;
>
Hi,
<$*IN> ==> process() ==> print;
This A06 example got me thinking.
Could non-variadic subrountines in a pipeline be useful?
A single arg sub or block could be a map without the "map":
<$*IN> ==> &process ==> print;
# print map { process($_) } <$*IN>
(1..6) ==> { $_++ } ==> say;
A
58 matches
Mail list logo
