On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 00:35:01 +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> Every value is conceptually an infinite stream of values, so e.g.
> writing a clock widget amounts to assigning the output of some
> formatting function applied to $time, into a GUI widget. The system
> will reevaluate on any change.
I
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 20:13:12 +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> For the first example, the answer is pretty clearly 14 but for the
> second the answer could arguably be either 14 *or* 24.
...
> More importantly - if that happened would it even matter? Would old
> programmers have a problem with it
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:07:18PM +0100, Raphael Mankin said:
> I think that you are confusing call by reference with call by name. With
> call by name every parameter is actually a subroutine that evaluates the
> parameter when you use it, as in Algol 60 of blessed memory.
Sorry, I was being a l
On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 20:13 +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:43:32PM +0300, Yuval Kogman said:
> > but conversly you have:
> >
> > my $x = 3;
> > my $y = $x;
> > $x++;
> > $y; # 4
> >
> > IIRC python works like that.
>
> There was an interesting paper a wh
a=10
b=4
c=a+b
a=20
Now what is the value of c?
For the first example, the answer is pretty clearly 14 but for the
second the answer could arguably be either 14 *or* 24.
I think most programmers are going to go with 14 but I wonder if a
totally pass by reference language
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:43:32PM +0300, Yuval Kogman said:
> but conversly you have:
>
> my $x = 3;
> my $y = $x;
> $x++;
> $y; # 4
>
> IIRC python works like that.
There was an interesting paper a while back [goes off to find it ...
AHAH]
http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/rese
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 20:29:31 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> For example, in certain languages, strings and primitive-wrapper
> objects are immutable, so if you pass them to someone else, they can't
> muck around with them.
In perl they are too, a scalar is a container not a value.
$x++ create
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 19:18:38 +0100, Simon Wistow wrote:
> A thought - what would the advantages and disadvantages of having only
> references in a language.
I'm going to assume you mean low level referencing semantics (value
aliasing)
> The downside is that, of course, you can spooky actions
What other subtleties am I missing? What are the pros and cons from a
language and culture perspective? From an underlying implementation and
internals perspective?
Well, the first thing that occurs to me is that every variable access is now a
dereference, which is going to be very wasteful fo
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 20:18, Simon Wistow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What other subtleties am I missing? What are the pros and cons from a
> language and culture perspective? From an underlying implementation and
> internals perspective?
>From a culture perspective, it also depends on which cla
A thought - what would the advantages and disadvantages of having only
references in a language.
Let's take Perl for example. By only having references we'd clean up a
lot of syntax confusion - no more $foo{bar} and $foo->{bar}, there is
only one way to do it.
Related it's much easier to expla
11 matches
Mail list logo
