Re: - as - with automatic is rw
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:07:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: I'm proposing
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) - $foo, $bar, $xyzzy { ... }
: for %quux.kv - $key, $value { ... }
That'd probably work on the keys only if the hash was declared to have
object keys. At least in Perl 5, the key is always a copy.
: to mean
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) - $foo is rw, $bar is rw, $xyzzy is rw { ... }
: for %quux.kv - $key is rw, $value is rw { ... }
:
: Comments, anyone?
It's really sick, and cute, and I love it. Unfortunately I'm not sure
it passes the Are there already too many ways to declare a sub? test...
It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
for zip @a ¥ @b - { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
could be made to work. But I'm still dubious. And arguably - {...}
means the same as sub () {...}, implying there are no arguments.
Arguably it already means that. But if - were added, it might be a good
reason to make - {...} mean - $_ {...}, using - {...} for - $_ is rw
{...}. A good way to remove one more special case (maybe offsetting the extra
way to declare a sub, and sweeten the whole deal).
--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today --
I think he's from the CIA.
Re: - as - with automatic is rw
Larry Wall skribis 2004-08-20 13:31 (-0700): Unfortunately I'm not sure it passes the Are there already too many ways to declare a sub? test... I'm not seeing it as another way. Technically, of course it is different, but by the user, - and - will probably be seen as one thing, with one of them being the other's specialized form. It's really sick Sick would be if - were introduced to make the variable write-only ;) W R @foos - $foo @foos - $foo @foos - $foo It would be consistent, though... Juerd
Re: - as - with automatic is rw
Juerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sick would be if - were introduced to make the variable write-only ;)
Sicker still would be if - were introduced to make the variable
neither readable nor writeable. HTH.HAND.
--
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b-()}}
split//,[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ --;$\=$ ;- ();print$/
Re: - as - with automatic is rw
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:07:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: I'm proposing
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) - $foo, $bar, $xyzzy { ... }
: for %quux.kv - $key, $value { ... }
That'd probably work on the keys only if the hash was declared to have
object keys. At least in Perl 5, the key is always a copy.
: to mean
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) - $foo is rw, $bar is rw, $xyzzy is rw { ... }
: for %quux.kv - $key is rw, $value is rw { ... }
:
: Comments, anyone?
It's really sick, and cute, and I love it. Unfortunately I'm not sure
it passes the Are there already too many ways to declare a sub? test...
It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
for zip @a ¥ @b - { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
could be made to work. But I'm still dubious. And arguably - {...}
means the same as sub () {...}, implying there are no arguments.
Larry
Re: - as - with automatic is rw
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
for zip @a ¥ @b - { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
Shouldn't that be:
for zip @a, @b - { ... }
--or--
for @a ¥ @b - { ... }
?
--
matt
Re: - as - with automatic is rw
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:46:33PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
:
: for zip @a ¥ @b - { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
:
: Shouldn't that be:
:
: for zip @a, @b - { ... }
: --or--
: for @a ¥ @b - { ... }
:
: ?
Yes, a typo. Though it's not actually clear yet whether you have to
write zips args with semicolons, which is why I partially switched
to ¥ in midthink.
Larry
