Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 9 Oct 2008, at 12:59 am, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote: Perhaps a better comparison may be my $foo = $a + $b[5]; and add scalar a to the fifth element of array b and assign to new scalar foo How about...? foo = a + b[5] The [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc signs are misplaced in modern perl (which is shown through Ruby's better use of them). A lot of the braces and brackets and ; could all be (to a large extent) kicked out of the language. Ruby manages it. Haskell manages it. C# is getting closer to it. I don't know more than a drop of Python but it looks cleaner (from a distance). Why keep in a load of stuff just because it was there in version 4 and just because a (new language) version called Perl6 may be completed soon. but then does it really buy all that much? For me, it says what I mean vs doing what I mean, which is why a lot of projects choose other languages which may be more verbose or "less expressive", but ultimately are easier to read than perl. if $a ~~ $b #this could mean several things if $a in $b #it is clear what this means if a in b #this is even better IMO Iain
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 00:49:15 +0100 Paul LeoNerd Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my $foo = $a + $b; > > I suppose you'd suggest this can be written > > my scalar foo is scalar a add scalar b end statement I suppose this is a little unfair, since my brain is sortof wired to understand perl and English. Perhaps a better comparison may be my $foo = $a + $b[5]; and add scalar a to the fifth element of array b and assign to new scalar foo -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote: What?? my $foo = $a + $b; I suppose you'd suggest this can be written my scalar foo is scalar a add scalar b end statement You suppose wrong. Better luck next time.
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:08:21 +0100 Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I certainly would be in favour of having an extra 'in' keyword There's always a danger when adding new keywords that they'll clash with existing functions in existing code, given as they're barewords. That's why 5.10 has the 'use feature' pragma for switch/etc... I suppose you could use feature qw( in ); but then does it really buy all that much? -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:22:20 +0100 Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Stowe wrote: > > 2008/10/8 Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > >> If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in > >> english, > >> is easier to type and provides a better, clearer explanation of what it > >> does > >> in code than 'in' I will say no more on the subject because we would just > >> be > >> dealing with a huge gulf in our mental models of the world. > >> > > > > '~~' is not exactly the same as 'in' - it is 'smart match' and I'm > > guessing it was chosen because of its similarity to '=~' which > > everyone thinks of as 'match'. I would hazard that finding a single > > short unambiguous English word that would do instead might be > > problematic. If you need to say or think it out loud then "smart > > match" is fine. > > Yes, I saw Andy's previous post. > > One of the things I like about perl is the fact that we have nice names > for things in addition to the concise versions, how's about an english > name for smart matching in addition to the ~~ operator? (can't we all > just get along, etc) What?? my $foo = $a + $b; I suppose you'd suggest this can be written my scalar foo is scalar a add scalar b end statement and somehow that is more readable?? As the previous poster said; if you wanted COBOL you know where to find it. "ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL" and so on... One of the things _I_ like about Perl is that it accepts the fact that larger alphabets yield shorter sentences. Perl isn't afraid to use symbols if it means they tend to give shorter statements that are quicker to read or write. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Complaining (was: Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:51:18PM +0100, Dominic Thoreau wrote: > If there was nothing else to complain about, they'd complain that > things were too nice. In msg just received from the SO, currently on south coast of Crete: P.S. Just overhead a neighbour say, "I don't like that beach, there's too much sand." -- Chris Benson
EMERGENCY: Bright and Early Monday Morning
So, I find myself transiting Heathrow with a somewhat questionable layover once more. I'll be arriving in London this Sunday evening at about 9pm. I fly out of Heathrow at 2:15pm on Monday. The last couple times we've tried to breakfast at The Wolseley, we've failed due to a lack of reservations. If you'd like to eat breakfast on Monday, reply to me off-list with acceptable times and I'll attempt to sort something out. Best, Jesse
Re: London.pm on Upcoming
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 05:58:39PM +0100, Dave Cross wrote: > I don't have any problem with that at all. At least a couple of > london.pm'ers will be at the Python meeting. I was planning to go > myself, but I had to change my plans at the last minute. I was going to go, but have decided to hack on interesting code instead, because I've run into a limitation in an application that I use. Said application is, amusingly, written in python :-) -- David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic Seven o'clock in the morning is something that happens to those less fortunate than me
Re: London.pm on Upcoming
On 8 Oct 2008, at 17:58, Dave Cross wrote: I don't have any problem with that at all. At least a couple of london.pm'ers will be at the Python meeting. I was planning to go myself, but I had to change my plans at the last minute. Python is not the enemy. Dynamic languages should unite and fight the true enemy - The Judean Popular Front. For some reason the phrase "The narcissism of small differences" has been on my mind a lot so far this week :) -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Re: London.pm on Upcoming
Andrew Black wrote: > Other Events Like This > Wed, Oct 8 London Python meetup > Discuss > Beer. P-languages. Beer. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/
Re: London.pm on Upcoming
2008/10/8 Andrew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Wed, Oct 8London Python meetup http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/1135363/ See you there! Leon
Re: London.pm on Upcoming
Andrew Black wrote: Dave Cross wrote: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/group/12343/ Which says Other Events Like This Wed, Oct 8 London Python meetup Discuss I don't have any problem with that at all. At least a couple of london.pm'ers will be at the Python meeting. I was planning to go myself, but I had to change my plans at the last minute. Python is not the enemy. Dynamic languages should unite and fight the true enemy - The Judean Popular Front. Dave...
Re: London.pm on Upcoming
Dave Cross wrote: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/group/12343/ Which says Other Events Like This Wed, Oct 8London Python meetup Discuss
London.pm on Upcoming
Just a reminder about the london.pm group on Upcoming. If you're planning to attend any of our forthcoming events and you've got an Upcoming account then please mark your attendance on Upcoming. http://upcoming.yahoo.com/group/12343/ Cheers, Dave...
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But hey, it's my birthday, I'm allowed. Happy birthday! /m
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Andy Wardley wrote: Nigel Rantor wrote: Let's take "~~" for example. It's arguably harder to type than "in". And by that I mean for *me* it is harder to type. I agree. ~~ is particularly hard for me to type on keyboards that put it at the bottom left right next to the shift key (i.e. Macs). 'in' is much easier to type, and also much easier to read. Although ~~ is somewhat easier to read in my head, now that I know it's called "wiggly wiggly". ;-) Yay! As others have pointed out, '~~' isn't quite the same thing as 'in'. It would be potentially confusing in this kind of situation: @foo ~~ @bar # arrays are identical @foo in @bar # not what it looks like! Indeed. I missed that initially. However, I certainly would be in favour of having an extra 'in' keyword just for those special cases where it does make sense. It would be nice if we could re-use it in for loops, too: print $x for $x in @y; I'm sure it'll be easy to add it in Perl6. Well, I'm quite happy with "foreach [] LIST"...but you're right, it'll prolly be in P6. n
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Jonathan Stowe wrote: 2008/10/8 Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english, is easier to type and provides a better, clearer explanation of what it does in code than 'in' I will say no more on the subject because we would just be dealing with a huge gulf in our mental models of the world. '~~' is not exactly the same as 'in' - it is 'smart match' and I'm guessing it was chosen because of its similarity to '=~' which everyone thinks of as 'match'. I would hazard that finding a single short unambiguous English word that would do instead might be problematic. If you need to say or think it out loud then "smart match" is fine. Yes, I saw Andy's previous post. One of the things I like about perl is the fact that we have nice names for things in addition to the concise versions, how's about an english name for smart matching in addition to the ~~ operator? (can't we all just get along, etc) "If you want COBOL you know where to find it" No I don't, but google could probably help me.
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Nigel Metheringham wrote: On 8 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english Considering your email address I would have thought you would be very much in favour of ~~ and have a good way of pronouncing it *fnaar* Good work fella. You're right, I just wanted to retain the possibility of using ~~ for my own nefarious ends in a yet-to-be-written Perl source filter *cue evil laughter* Although, if people are going to start calling it the "wiggly" operator that wouldn't be too bad either. B-)
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 16:12, James Laver wrote: [...] I also seem to recall the 'inchworm on a stick', '~-'. I had to google to find out what it does, but it seems to be a high precedence decrement[1] It's a rather sneaky trick based on how two's complement works. Come steal my copy of "Hacker's Delight" sometime. It's chock full of sneaky number tricks like this.
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Andy Armstrong wrote: On 8 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Nigel Rantor wrote: If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english, is easier to type and provides a better, clearer explanation of what it does in code than 'in' I will say no more on the subject because we would just be dealing with a huge gulf in our mental models of the world. But ~~ isn't the same as in - it's a smart match not an inclusion test. mea culpa. and as it's an operator in the sense of ==, &&, || etc how about we simply have another name for it like 'and', 'or' and 'not' for those of us who want to talk English in Perl? Yes, I realise I just started another two wars with the above comment. But hey, it's my birthday, I'm allowed. n
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 15:51, Dominic Thoreau wrote: [...] This is the world's biggest lie. People will complain about everything. The price of $commodity. The traffic. The weather (it's too hot/too cold/too changing/too consistent). If there was nothing else to complain about, they'd complain that things were too nice. Hence the old joke from Australia: "How do you know a plane full of Poms has just arrived? The whining continues after they turn the engines off."
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 2008-10-08 15:55, "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that the ~~ secret operator (the one that does "scalar" and works > with Perls older than 5.10, not "smart-match") is called "inchworm". > > Example usage: > > perl -le'print~~localtime' Again the name relevance is a question of font. I also seem to recall the 'inchworm on a stick', '~-'. I had to google to find out what it does, but it seems to be a high precedence decrement[1] Now at least we can identify the london.pm members who should spend less time golfing... Cheers, --James [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03450.html
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Nigel Rantor wrote: Let's take "~~" for example. It's arguably harder to type than "in". And by that I mean for *me* it is harder to type. I agree. ~~ is particularly hard for me to type on keyboards that put it at the bottom left right next to the shift key (i.e. Macs). 'in' is much easier to type, and also much easier to read. Although ~~ is somewhat easier to read in my head, now that I know it's called "wiggly wiggly". ;-) As others have pointed out, '~~' isn't quite the same thing as 'in'. It would be potentially confusing in this kind of situation: @foo ~~ @bar # arrays are identical @foo in @bar # not what it looks like! However, I certainly would be in favour of having an extra 'in' keyword just for those special cases where it does make sense. It would be nice if we could re-use it in for loops, too: print $x for $x in @y; I'm sure it'll be easy to add it in Perl6. A
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
2008/10/8 Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I like Perl, but I complain about it all the time. As I'm only known to London.pm as an email contributor atm, I'll delurk a little more by giving out more information. Since I wasn't born in this *hemisphere*, I've come to realize some things about the British character. Two people meet in the street, and the usual pleasantries ensue: - How are you? - Oh, I can't complain... This is the world's biggest lie. People will complain about everything. The price of $commodity. The traffic. The weather (it's too hot/too cold/too changing/too consistent). If there was nothing else to complain about, they'd complain that things were too nice. People can always complain - this is not a big problem. It's the things they aren't complaining about that are really bothering them. And to reply to another message in this one: > "If you want COBOL you know where to find it" No. I don't know where to find it. And I'm interested in having it stay that way. I studied it briefly. Just enough exposure to the language to cause extreme aversion. You cannot afford to make write that. We're talking mega-oligarch rates here. -- No train here, but still: The sign says: "Ready to Leave" Normal service, yes?
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:36:18PM +0100, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Nigel Metheringham > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 8 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in > >> english > > > > > > Considering your email address I would have thought you would be very > > much in favour of ~~ and have a good way of pronouncing it > > OMG ROFL! > > If this operator doesn't have a well-established way of being > pronounced I think it ought to have this one! Note that the ~~ secret operator (the one that does "scalar" and works with Perls older than 5.10, not "smart-match") is called "inchworm". Example usage: perl -le'print~~localtime' -- Philippe Bruhat (BooK) There is no greater magic than knowing exactly who and what you are. (Moral from Groo #2 (Image))
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
--- On Wed, 8/10/08, Nigel Metheringham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ > scans nicely in > > english > > > Considering your email address I would have thought you > would be very > much in favour of ~~ and have a good way of pronouncing > it Ooh! Nigel versus Nigel and Nigel wins! Seriously, though ... when I first saw the regex binding operator "=~", I thought the same thing. Now I don't even blink. If people find smart match useful enough, this operator will become so commonplace that many might complain, but few will be worried about it. Beer. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
Re: [Gllug-Social] [ANNOUNCE] Croyden.pm: cancelled
At 16:06 +0100 7/10/08, David Cantrell wrote: Croyden.pm this evening is cancelled due to lack of interest. Funny, I was thinking of attending a nearby beer festival... http://www.croydoncamra.org.uk/ 9th to 11th Oct - Wallington Beer Festival Wallington Hall, Stafford Road, Wallington, SM6 9AQ. Gordo -- "Think Feynman"/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 3:22 pm, Abigail wrote: Note that ~~ is easier to search for in a text file due to getting far less false positives on ~~ than when searching with 'in'. `in`? On 8 Oct 2008, at 3:13 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote: guessing it was chosen because of its similarity to '=~' That makes a lot of sense. Thanks. On 8 Oct 2008, at 2:51 pm, Nigel Rantor wrote: I like Perl, but I complain about it all the time. Me too. Actually, I complain about everything, it distracts people from my own shoddy work/life :) Iain
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Nigel Metheringham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in >> english > > > Considering your email address I would have thought you would be very > much in favour of ~~ and have a good way of pronouncing it OMG ROFL! If this operator doesn't have a well-established way of being pronounced I think it ought to have this one!
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
2008/10/8 Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english, > is easier to type and provides a better, clearer explanation of what it does > in code than 'in' I will say no more on the subject because we would just be > dealing with a huge gulf in our mental models of the world. > '~~' is not exactly the same as 'in' - it is 'smart match' and I'm guessing it was chosen because of its similarity to '=~' which everyone thinks of as 'match'. I would hazard that finding a single short unambiguous English word that would do instead might be problematic. If you need to say or think it out loud then "smart match" is fine. "If you want COBOL you know where to find it"
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Nigel Rantor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english Considering your email address I would have thought you would be very much in favour of ~~ and have a good way of pronouncing it Nigel. -- [ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ]
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:51:51PM +0100, Nigel Rantor wrote: > > I'm not necessarily saying that we need to replace anything that is > already there in the language, but why must we *add* more things that > that look like noise? > > Let's take "~~" for example. It's arguably harder to type than "in". And > by that I mean for *me* it is harder to type. I need to hit shift to do > it, so it's slower than 'in'. That's streching it, and the difference is so minimal, I don't think it's relevant. Yes, for ~~ one needs the shift key, but a shift key can be pressed at the same time as another key (and there are shift keys on both sides of most keyboards), and ~~ requires no replacement of fingers between the keystrokes. 'in' requires movement of the fingers - of the same hand even - between the two characters. Note that ~~ is easier to search for in a text file due to getting far less false positives on ~~ than when searching with 'in'. > It is not shorter than 'in' so doesn't win > on speed nor brevity. It also doesn't scan like english, so whilst > something like: > > die "can't find it guv!" unless $thing in @set; > > reads quite nicely, > > die "can't find it guv!" unless $thing ~~ @set; > > doesn't. But die "..." unless $thing in $sub; is just plain weird. While '~~' isn't "obvious" (but then, neither is =~, or even '=' for that matter), it certainly doesn't confuse people as 'in' would were it used to replace '~~'. Abigail
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 14:51, Nigel Rantor wrote: If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english, is easier to type and provides a better, clearer explanation of what it does in code than 'in' I will say no more on the subject because we would just be dealing with a huge gulf in our mental models of the world. But ~~ isn't the same as in - it's a smart match not an inclusion test. -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Andy Armstrong wrote: On 8 Oct 2008, at 12:18, Nigel Rantor wrote: And, having already read Iain's reply, I agree. That's not the winning attitude that Perl advocates should aim to present. I wasn't whining. In fact I don't think I do whining. It was a serious question - should we allow the design of the language to be influenced by a focus group consisting of people who dislike it? Okay, good, I didn't think you were whining, just being a little aggressive. But that's e-mail for you, no tone or register. On topic, I would say that someone "complaining" that something looks too much like line noise is not necessarily someone who "dislikes" the language. I like Perl, but I complain about it all the time. For example, threads? Please? POE sucks arse in lots of areas where a threading implementation that worked somewhat like POSIX would be infinitely easier to use and debug. I complain less about this publicly because I do not have enough time to do it myself, and getting the obligatory "quicker if you help" answer to "when" isn't always helpful. There's a difference between complaining so you can call something crap and complaining to get something made better. I think complaining that ~~ is easily confused with -- is fairly valid. I also think that complaining that ~~ does not immediately tell you what it does is also valid. I take your point that perhaps some Perl people would also like to move away from the line noise look. My view on that is that it's probably a bit late for Perl 5 to change the habit of a lifetime so they should be early adopters of Perl 6 where they can make the language look exactly how they want it to :) I'm not necessarily saying that we need to replace anything that is already there in the language, but why must we *add* more things that that look like noise? Let's take "~~" for example. It's arguably harder to type than "in". And by that I mean for *me* it is harder to type. I need to hit shift to do it, so it's slower than 'in'. It is not shorter than 'in' so doesn't win on speed nor brevity. It also doesn't scan like english, so whilst something like: die "can't find it guv!" unless $thing in @set; reads quite nicely, die "can't find it guv!" unless $thing ~~ @set; doesn't. If anyone comes back and tell me that they think ~~ scans nicely in english, is easier to type and provides a better, clearer explanation of what it does in code than 'in' I will say no more on the subject because we would just be dealing with a huge gulf in our mental models of the world. n
Re: Apple service providers
On 8 Oct 2008, at 13:25, David Cantrell wrote: [...] Given the number of crazy people who shouted at me for paying someone to put some memory in my new machine, saying that I should have done it myself to save an insignificant number of pennies, I was sure that one of them would want a broken machine on the cheap that they could waste a great many hours fixing. Offer it to thebookyard.com to break for spares. Although if you're going to do that, and assuming they parts are compatible with my broken PowerBook, I'd quite like the DC-IN board and PSU. (TBY would charge me about £80 for those bits.)
Re: Apple service providers
On 8 Oct 2008, at 13:25, David Cantrell wrote: On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:56:35AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You're seriously expecting this to have some resale value? Given the number of crazy people who shouted at me for paying someone to put some memory in my new machine, saying that I should have done it myself to save an insignificant number of pennies, I was sure that one of them would want a broken machine on the cheap that they could waste a great many hours fixing. I shouted at you because it really is so easy. Even I did it. And the dodgy screen thing is pretty damn unfixable. I've had two old powerbooks epically fail on that. -- Dave HodgkinsonMSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Site: http://www.davehodgkinson.com UK: +44 7768 49020 Blog: http://davehodg.blogspot.comNL: +31 654 982906 Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehodg
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
--- On Wed, 8/10/08, Paul Makepeace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Smart-match smells too much of DWIMmery for me to be > comfortable with > > it. > > Does calling it polymorphism help? Heh :) ++ Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Tech blog- http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/ Twitter - http://twitter.com/OvidPerl Official Perl 6 Wiki - http://www.perlfoundation.org/perl6
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:57:38PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote: > >> I agree with both your points, but that also doesn't invalidate the >> point that perl might benefit from less "line noisy" syntax at times, >> just as ~~ doesn't necessarily obviate the need for an "in" operator. >> The smart match does look good though. > > Smart-match smells too much of DWIMmery for me to be comfortable with > it. Does calling it polymorphism help? P
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 10:05 am, Tom Hukins wrote: On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:57:38PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote: Ok, no problem. I read it that way because the default monger response to any criticism of perl is the old Wimbledon chant, "No one likes us but we don't care". I think you mean Millwall, although Wimbledon 2.0 (MK Dons) have adopted this chant probably because they're less popular than Millwall. To paraphrase John Lennon. Badly. Some people eat pie at football matches, so I declare this post on-topic. Tom You are, of course, all on both counts (though I wouldn't trust the pie at football matches). Iain
Re: Apple service providers
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 02:56:35AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You're seriously expecting this to have some resale value? Given the number of crazy people who shouted at me for paying someone to put some memory in my new machine, saying that I should have done it myself to save an insignificant number of pennies, I was sure that one of them would want a broken machine on the cheap that they could waste a great many hours fixing. -- David Cantrell | Enforcer, South London Linguistic Massive engineer: n. one who, regardless of how much effort he puts in to a job, will never satisfy either the suits or the scientists
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:57:38PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote: > I agree with both your points, but that also doesn't invalidate the > point that perl might benefit from less "line noisy" syntax at times, > just as ~~ doesn't necessarily obviate the need for an "in" operator. > The smart match does look good though. Smart-match smells too much of DWIMmery for me to be comfortable with it. -- David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence What a lovely day! Now watch me spoil it for you.
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On 8 Oct 2008, at 12:18, Nigel Rantor wrote: And, having already read Iain's reply, I agree. That's not the winning attitude that Perl advocates should aim to present. I wasn't whining. In fact I don't think I do whining. It was a serious question - should we allow the design of the language to be influenced by a focus group consisting of people who dislike it? I take your point that perhaps some Perl people would also like to move away from the line noise look. My view on that is that it's probably a bit late for Perl 5 to change the habit of a lifetime so they should be early adopters of Perl 6 where they can make the language look exactly how they want it to :) -- Andy Armstrong, Hexten
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
Andy Armstrong wrote: On 7 Oct 2008, at 17:50, Iain Barnett wrote: Why wait for Perl 6? Perl 5 has had it for almost a year now. It's spelled ~~ though. Is there some reason why -- was picked over 'in' ? It just seems to pander to those who think perl reads like line noise. It's ~~ not -- and it's not just in - it's a general purpose adaptive match whose semantics are determined by the things being matched. And (meta) who cares about people who think that Perl reads like line noise. Should the language bend to the preferences of those who dislike it? People who care about Perl, like it, and want more people to do the same. Do you not recall the amount of disagreement caused when the list discussed some perl 6 features syntax that split people horribly into the "it's just so much line noise" vs "what's wrong with line noise" camps? And, having already read Iain's reply, I agree. That's not the winning attitude that Perl advocates should aim to present. n
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 04:20:57PM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> "Paul Makepeace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ... is starting to frustrate me. It's the one feature I am finding I'm
> > really missing from That Other Language.
> >
> > if ($bar in @foo) {
> > # ...
> > }
>
> use Perl6::Junction qw/any/;
>
> if ($bar eq any(@foo)) {
> # ...
> }
And note that Perl6::Junction is a relatively crack-free module - no
non-core deps and a pretty clean implementation. The only real crack in
there is the heavy use of operator overloading, and I've kinda reached the
point where that doesn't count as crack at all to me :)
--
Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform?
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/
Re: [OT] What's my name?
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:27:37PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> In this code:
>
> *beer = *buffy = *pie = *kittens = sub {
> ...
> };
>
> is there an easy way for the subroutine to know what name it was called as.
> If it makes it easier, the subroutine is actually going to be a method.
I'm not sure the information you want exists outside of the GV2RV op.
Figuring out which one of those you got called with is left as an exercise
to those with more crack handy.
--
Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project?
Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/
Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform?
http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/
Re: Apple service providers
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 04:40:25PM +0100, Martin A. Brooks wrote: >Simon Wilcox wrote: >>Anyone have recommendations/horror stories to share ? > >As the person who handled all of Fotango's apple problems, we used >http://www.mrsystems.co.uk/ on the basis they were closest to the >office. The service was, imo, appaling, but apparently that's par for >the course for AppleCare, where it's okay for you to be without your >computer for a couple of weeks. Avoid MR like the plague. My MBP had a dodgy RAM stick, which was trivial to diagnose with memtest. MR listened attentively to my description of the issue, and took my MBP, promising to call me the following day. 4 days later, after a series of increasingly vague phonecalls, I came to collect my MBP, which they hadn't so much as touched. I went straight to the Apple Store, where I was given the usual flannel about there not being any appointments for several days. I made a very polite, slightly louder than usual talking scene about having paid for my AppleCare, etc and was seen by a Genius immediately after delivering the line: "So what you're saying is that such a high percentage of Apple hardware is defective, that you're unable to keep enough technical staff on hand to deal with the issues?" The Genius found the dodgy RAM in about 5 minutes, and I was fixed and on my way in another 10. Ben
Re: Apple service providers
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:59:26PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote: >On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:46:14PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote: > >> http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/ > >Anyone wanna DVI Powerbook? The screen's on the fritz, probably just a >loose connection, but I really can't be arsed going through the 40-odd >steps just to get at the bits to look at them. > >The symptoms are that sometimes the display goes all wibbly. Giving the >case a sharp tap fixes it temporarily. > >Make me an offer off-list. You're seriously expecting this to have some resale value? Ben
Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 09:57:38PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote: > Ok, no problem. I read it that way because the default monger > response to any criticism of perl is the old Wimbledon chant, "No one > likes us but we don't care". I think you mean Millwall, although Wimbledon 2.0 (MK Dons) have adopted this chant probably because they're less popular than Millwall. To paraphrase John Lennon. Badly. Some people eat pie at football matches, so I declare this post on-topic. Tom
