Re: Private contracts?
* Larry Wall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [12 Oct 2002 10:51]: [...] > use Acme::1.0; > After all, we don't have package names starting with numbers right now... Well, there's than Pod::Simple::31337, which confused search.cpan.org for a bit. But none which _start_ with a number, no. cheers, -- Iain.
Re: [RFC] Perl6 Operator List, Take 5
* Dyck, David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [31 Oct 2002 19:21]: [...] > You could use the Character Map accessory to put > the character into the clipboard, or > press the alt and hold the alt key while typing 0171 (or 0187) > < alt+0171 > > alt+0187 To be honest, as easy as it is to type ^a^v<< or ^k<<,[1] it's still typing an awful lot just to get a character. Surely the Perl operator Huffman encoding should take into account the length of time it takes to type the darn thing. Personally, I'm against non US-ascii chars being part of the core language. It's fine if people want their Unicode identifiers, or import modules to change operators, but I'd like to think I can at least read and write my own code in non-Latin-1 environments. [1] screen and vim respectively, although I could always make vim treat << as an abbreviation for the guillemet, although that would interfere with heredocs), cheers, -- Iain, who carefully didn't use any « or » chars until just then. Oops.
Re: plaintive whine about 'for' syntax
* Ed Peschko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 07:19]:
[...]
> for @a -> $a_variable1 is rw, $a_variable2 is rw;
> @b -> $b_variable is rw;
> @c -> $c_variable is rw;
> @d -> $d_variable is rw;
> @e -> $e_variable1 is rw, $e_variable2 is rw;
> {
> }
> is much, *much* clearer. IMO the current 'for' syntax suffers from
> action at a distance, even if that distance is within the same line.
> Related things aren't paired up nearly close enough to each other.
Give this man a +1. I do prefer to have associated things placed
with each other. And, as Simon pointed out, ';' is used to break
things apart, thus the syntax above makes somewhat more sense.
The best part is that I can easily comment out, delete, add part of
the expression without worrying that I'm deleting the wrong thing.
It may not be often that I will use the construct for multiple
iterators, but I can foreseeably use at least 2, and with the
added ease I can imagine using more =)
cheers,
--
Iain.
Re: [RFC] Perl6 Operator List, Take 5
* Larry Wall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [31 Oct 2002 08:22]: [...] > This is currently running in a window that does Latin-1 rather than > UTF-8. Do these French quotes come through? > @a «+» @b The window may say Latin-1, but the mail header said UTF-8. As it happens, I couldn't see them until I piped the message through less. That said, I've probably got a misconfiguration somewhere. I usually have trouble with top-bit set chars, and ms codepagisms. cheers, -- Iain.
Re: [RFC] Perl6 Operator List, Take 5
* Larry Wall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [01 Nov 2002 15:59]: [...] > I was misconfigured here. My pine was marking it as UTF-8 even though > the window was Latin-1. So you ought to be able to see this: @a «*» @b. That appeared perfectly. > I'm definitely going to look into mutt though...gotta have Unicode email. So I'm told =) Me? I'd be happy if more mailers supported the Mail-Followup-To header. I'm not too concerned about unicode since my xterm doesn't support it anyway =) Obviously, I'll look into it one of these days. Soon after Perl 6 is released, I imagine. cheers, -- Iain.
Re: String concatentation operator
* Dan Sugalski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [18 Nov 2002 12:56]: [...] > Perl's standard threading behaviour's going to be > rather heavyweight, though. Silly question time: Why is it going to be rather heavyweight? (Not complaining or berating, just wanting information =) ) > (Though the presentation on Erlang at LL2 has got me thinking more > about efficient multithreading. Good! > I don't think we'll be able to use it > for perl, though) Not so good! =) cheers, -- Iain.
Re: Continuations
* Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [19 Nov 2002 15:19]: > Luke Palmer asked: > > What was the final syntax for vector ops? > > > >@a ???+??? @b > >@a ???+??? @b > The latter (this week, at least ;-). Y'know, for those of us who still haven't set up Unicode, they look remarkably similar =) cheers, -- Iain.
Re: right-to-left pipelines
* Damian Conway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [12 Dec 2002 10:32]:
[...]
> You underestimate your ability to communicate, Simon. I understood
> exactly what you wanted: pass a closure to a method without needing to
> wrap the closure in parens.
Simon appears to want to have closures as params just like Ruby.
As in:
array.each { |x| puts x }
rather than
@array.each({ print "$_[0]\n" })
(or however the syntax would currently be)
> I was explaining why I think we ought to keep the parens. And that is
> because, without them, we can't tell how many arguments to pass to the
> method. And because the default ("pass all of 'em") isn't a good
> enough answer.
So why does Ruby have so little trouble with it?
cheers,
--
Iain.
