Is this not just a module which creates the necessary subs in the calling
package ? The catchall can be done with an AUTOLOAD sub.
That's certainly how Class::Delegation is implemented.
It isn't quite adequate however, because if you trigger the AUTOLOAD and
it *fails* to delegate, you
In order to work with lists of arbitary size, it is often necessary to
split a list into equal sized sub-lists. A Cpart function is proposed
that achieves this:
Are the sublists copies or aliases? I imagine they are aliases,
but this could be specified in the RFC
--
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:16:48AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
By RFC 21, it looks like the call would be
if ( want 'LIST' ) {
$num_to_return = want;
# do stuff
}
or, more efficiently:
if ( ($num_to_return) = want 'LIST' ) {
"Bradley" == Bradley M Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bradley On a personal note, I would not be able to participate in
Bradley Perl6 development if doing so required that I use
Bradley perforce, because I have personal ethical beliefs that
Bradley prohibit me from using free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anyone surprised by the top few entries:
Nope. It looks close to what I saw when I profiled perl 5.004 and 5.005
running over innlog.pl and cleanfeed. The only difference is the method
stuff, since neither of those were OO apps. The current Perl seems to
spend most
"SWM" == Steven W McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
my $a;
Perl simply ignores locking. Thread gets the value of the winner
in a race condition. Perl does _not_ crash and burn. Internal
structures, mallocs, and accesses are properly mutexed.
SWM I don't understand this.
SWM Is $a
I think it's cool too, I don't like the @^g and ^@G either. But I worry
about the double-meaning of the []'s in your solution, and the fact that
these:
/\m[...]...\M/;
/\d[...]...\D/;
Will work so differently. Maybe another character like ()'s that takes a
list:
/\m(,[).*?\M(,])/;
At 09:29 AM 9/4/00 -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
the perl-qa people have some code they need to manage in a repository of
some kind. For now I have directed them to SourceForge, but I have a 100
users license for perforce I got for perl, so if we can get a quick
At 08:28 PM 8/31/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
More generally, for all X, I wouldn't mind
if Perl became the language of choice for X.
Who wouldn't!
But I think that would probably have to be, "if Perl became the language
of choice for X - 1".
Perl's gotta be written in
From: Peter Heslin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 10:49 PM
Simply put, I want variable-length lookbehind.
The RFC seems to say you want this so that you can optimize the operation of
the regex execution. I've been looking at the existing fixed-length
look-behind and see
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I think it's cool too, I don't like the @^g and ^@G either. But I worry
about the double-meaning of the []'s in your solution, and the fact that
these:
/\m[...]...\M/;
/\d[...]...\D/;
Well, it's not really a double meaning. It's a set of characters, just
like
Peter Scott writes:
Hey, waitaminute. That isn't a list in sub fn in the first place; it's
three expressions separated by scalar commas. Why is there no complaint
about useless use of a constant in void context?
$ perl -Mstrict -wle 'sub f{return(3,5,7)} my $x = f()'
$ perl -Mstrict
Hey, waitaminute. That isn't a list in sub fn in the first place; it's
three expressions separated by scalar commas. Why is there no complaint
about useless use of a constant in void context?
$ perl -Mstrict -wle 'sub f{return(3,5,7)} my $x = f()'
$ perl -Mstrict -wle 'my $x = (3,5,7)'
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 02:12:23PM -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
Unfortunately, as Richard Proctor pointed out, ?m is taken. Perhaps
(?[list|of|openers) and (?]list|of|closers) ?
That breaks the visual meaning of "|" as alternation if the RE engine
is to be smart enough to match the closers
On Tue 05 Sep, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Eric Roode wrote:
Now *that* sounds cool, I like it!
What if the RFC only suggested the addition of two new constructs, (?[)
and (?]), which did nested matches. The rest would be bound by standard
regex constructs and your imagination!
That is, the ?]
Damian Conway wrote:
Err, that *is* the default behaviour. Delegation doesn't occur unless
you specify it. Or am I missing your meaning here?
use delegation
attr1 = [qw( method1 method2 method3 )],
attr2 = [qw( method4 method5 )],
attr3 = __ALL__, # Use all of them.
attr4 =
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 08:59:10PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
=head1 TITLE
Objects : Private keys and methods
=head1 ABSTRACT
This RFC proposes a new keyword -- Cprivate -- that limits the
accessibility of keys in a hash, and of methods. Its primary use would be to
provide
When I see those empty arrayrefs, I think "delegate to *no* methods in
those classes stored in attr3 and att4," rather than "delegate all
method calls to those attributes." Just in the name of greater clarity,
I might like to see something like URI suggested:
attr3 =
Damian Conway wrote:
attr3 = [ALL]
It was (and is) a good suggestion. I suspect however that it should be
attr3 = [__ALL__]
Any consideration given to the :all export-like tag?
attr3 = [:all]# could be uppercase too
-Nate
Damian Conway wrote:
It was (and is) a good suggestion. I suspect however that it should be
attr3 = [__ALL__]
so that classes can still have an CALL method delegated.
(Yes, now they can't have an C__ALL__ method,
but maybe that's a Good Thing ;-)
Agreed. Yes, that's very good,
Richard Proctor wrote:
No ?] should match the closest ?[ it should nest the ?[s bound by any
brackets in the regex and act accordingly.
Good point.
Also this does not work as a definition of simple bracket matching as you
need ( to match ) not ( to match (. A ?[ list should specify for
David L. Nicol wrote:
In order to work with lists of arbitary size, it is often necessary to
split a list into equal sized sub-lists. A Cpart function is proposed
that achieves this:
Are the sublists copies or aliases? I imagine they are aliases,
but this could be specified in the RFC
When you want to turn off an inherited delegation in an ISA situation?
Um, I don't think I understand the question.
I'm confused by the question, too.
Delegation is not inherited. Any module you inherit from you won't
use for delegation, AFAIK. They're two different
exists (sometimes causes autovivification, which affects Ckeys)
That's not technically accurate--exists never causes autovivification.
--tom
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
When you want to turn off an inherited delegation in an ISA situation?
Um, I don't think I understand the question. Delegation is not
inherited. Any module you inherit from you won't use for delegation,
AFAIK. They're two different beasts.
Or am I misunderstanding
Michael Fowler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 10:34:37AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Well then, that's one nay vote. :)
Make that two.
Three. But I think Michael already knew about mine and forgot to count
it.
Heh, I am not counting votes. That was
Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:53:39PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Objects : Core support for method delegation
I like it! One gripe (of course)...
The proposed delegation mechanism would work via a pragma:
use delegation
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 16:46:03 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Would this be solved if print returned the string it printed? This seems
to be what everyone's getting at:
my $output = print $r-name . " is $age years old\n";
I think that's the idea... and print may return undef if it fails to
print,
Bart Lateur wrote:
Also,
print @items;
should then return join($,, @items).$\
I would want it to return @items:
@sorted = sort print @items;
I'd prefer a different name (tee?) and keep print as it is.
Jon
--
Knowledge is that which remains when what is
learned is forgotten.
Jon Ericson wrote:
Agreed. Good style would avoid this problem. The example in the
synopsis of this RFC should be:
my $output = "Print this line.\n";
Would this be solved if print returned the string it printed? This seems
to be what everyone's getting at:
my $output = print
This is what I'd consider good style:
my @output =
map { $_-[0] }
sort { $a-[1] cmp $b-[1] }
map { [$_, expensive_func($_)] } # print original lines
;
(Modified from http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=9108)
The main point of this statement is the Schwartzian
I think that's the idea... and print may return undef if it fails to
print, and the printed string otherwise (always defined, even if it's an
emtpy string).
Those are not the semantics of print. It returns true (1) if successful, and
false (undef) otherwise. You cannot change that. If I
Jon Ericson wrote:
I would want it to return @items:
@sorted = sort print @items;
I'd prefer a different name (tee?) and keep print as it is.
Pretty much all the stuff being discussed right now can be stuck in a
module:
package Print::Variations;
use Exporter;
@EXPORT =
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Again, I can't *ever* remember wanting a function that did this. Rare things
shouldn't have hard-to-figure-out names. Why do you want it? Debugging or
something? Have you tried tie?
I've found myself wanting this operator several times since I wrote the
RFC -
I've found myself wanting this operator several times since I wrote the
RFC - mostly for debugging and indicating progress. Nobody else seems
to be as fond of the syntax as I am, so I will withdraw the RFC. (Its
only virtue is the syntax.)
I suggest you create a clever tie module that does
Ken Rich wrote:
How about quotes? A quoted lhs expression could mean print. A quoted lhs
expression preceded by a file handle could mean print to filehandle.
Have you seen http://dev.perl.org/rfc/2.pod?
Tom Christiansen's complaint seems irrelevant to me because a print
statement is
"PS" == Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PS I find myself wishing there were something we could do about the
PS context rules. They seem simple enough, individually, but when
PS you put them together - well, there was a quiz a year or so ago -
PS I forget whether it was in TPJ or Usenet -
Dan Sugalski wrote:
I don't think we should make decisions about the software we use for
development based on political views.
While I do have many political views regarding free software, this is an
issue of ethical views. It against my personal ethics to use proprietary
software.
Jon Ericson wrote:
I had considered this, but I don't want Yet Another Quote-like Operator
(YAQO). Perhaps I should just change this RFC to call for a built-in
tee operator:
push @lines, tee($_) for ;
I would vote strongly against a built-in "tee" operator.
You can achieve the same
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Objects : Core support for method delegation
This idea rocks, Damian! I want it now! Just one suggestion, however...
The proposed delegation mechanism would work via a
if ( ($num_to_return) = want 'LIST' ) {
# do stuff
}
And more correct as I would assume that
() = some_func();
$num_to_return would be zero, but the assignment would cause the
if() to be true.
A scalar context Cwant would
Damian Conway wrote:
if ( ($num_to_return) = want 'LIST' ) {
# do stuff
}
$num_to_return would be zero, but the assignment would cause the
if() to be true.
A scalar context Cwant would also need to DWIM, presumably by returning
"0,
A scalar context Cwant would also need to DWIM, presumably by returning
"0, but true" in that (unusual) situation.
Actually, given Damian's and my conversations last night, it looks like
the first return arg from want() is going to be the context after all
(since then
All -
I fail to see the reason for imposing that all
variables
"know" how to perform ops upon themselves. An operation is
separate from the data it operates on. Therefore, I propose
the following vtbl scheme, with two goals:
1. that the minimal vtbl be just that, minimal
2. that it be
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or have a "next" vtable function that takes a token and returns the next
entry in the variable. Each iterator keeps its own "current token" and the
variable's just responsible for figuring out what should get
David L. Nicol wrote:
For sets, hashes are a better perl representation.
I think you must have missed some of this discussion.
Rather than reiterate my contributions, I'll point you into the archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg03425.html
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:48:38 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
- two-phase commit handler, rollback coordinator (the above two is
connected to this: very simple algorhythm!)
Here's the killer. This is *not* simple. At all. Not even close.
Doing this properly with data sources you completely
At 01:42 AM 9/4/00 +0200, dLux wrote:
What it needs in the core is pretty small btw:
I think you underestimate things here a tad...
- a new keyword, which is similar to "local"
Okay, that's small.
- some extension to the TIE interface (some new callbacks)
As is this.
- some extension to the
At 10:57 PM 9/4/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
"SWM" == Steven W McDougall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PRL All threads share the same global variables
_All_ or only as requested by the user (ala :shared)?
SWM All.
Dan has gone through this with perl5 and he really would rather not
have to
/--- On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 11:48:38AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
| - two-phase commit handler, rollback coordinator (the above two
| is
|connected to this: very simple algorhythm!)
|
| Here's the killer. This is *not* simple. At all. Not even close.
|
| Doing this properly with data
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 15:16:20 -0400, Peter Heslin wrote:
This looks more natural to me:
/(?`!G+A+T+)GA+C/
Your version is closer to the way lookbehind works now, so this syntax
might be thought to be clearer; I should add to the RFC an explicit
note about this.
Look at your original
On Tue 05 Sep, David Corbin wrote:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
But, how about a new ?m operator?
/(?m|[).*?(?M|])/;
Let's combine yor operator with my example from above where everything
inside the (?m) or the ?(M)
fits the syntax of a RE.
/(?m()|\[).*?(?M()|(\]))
I think David's on to something good here. A major problem with
holding the bracket-matching possibilities in a special variable
(or a pair of them) is that one can't figure out what the RE is
going to do just by looking at it -- you have to look elsewhere.
Nathan Wiger wrote:
I think it's cool
"DS" == Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS I'd definitely rather perl not do any sort of explicit user-level locking.
DS That's not our job, and there be dragons.
Please explain how this is possible?
Does this mean that without user specifying a lock, perl will allow
a chaotic update
DS I'd definitely rather perl not do any sort of explicit user-level locking.
DS That's not our job, and there be dragons.
Please explain how this is possible?
Just say no...to locks.
Does this mean that without user specifying a lock, perl will allow
a chaotic update pattern to be
Doing this properly with data sources you completely control in a
multi-access situation (read: with threads) is *hard*.
Is it?
Here's some high-level emulation of what it should do.
eval {
my($_a, $_b, $c) = ($a, $b, $c);
...
($a,
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:48:45 +0200, dLux wrote:
/--- On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:18:56PM -0500, Greg Rollins wrote:
| Will perl monitor the commit and rollback actions of transactions?
\---
What exactly you mean?
And did you have to quote 500+ lines of the RFC just to add this one
sentence?
--
"GL" == Glenn Linderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GL Chaim Frenkel wrote:
($foo, $baz, @bar) = (1,(2,3),4) # $foo = 1 $baz=2, @bar=(3,4)
Actually, looking at it like that makes it an ugly situation. The 'new'
expectation would be to have it become
# $foo=1 $baz=2 @bar=(4)
GL Actually?
Will perl monitor the commit and rollback actions of transactions?
- Original Message -
From: "Perl6 RFC Librarian" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 4:35 PM
Subject: RFC 130 (v5) Transaction-enabled variables for Perl6
This
/--- On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:18:56PM -0500, Greg Rollins wrote:
| Will perl monitor the commit and rollback actions of transactions?
\---
What exactly you mean?
dLux
--
This message is READ-ONLY
60 matches
Mail list logo
