A summary: %, @, [], {}

I will read replies, and respond to off list emails, but I will refrain from posting to the list on this topic for at least one week. If you have nothing new to add, then please don't post. Suggestion: pseudohash. %foo{Fred} = 'Bloggs'; $bar = %bar[1];# $bar is 'Bloggs' Suggest

the list archives ...

... at http://archive.develooper.com/?M=D should now be updating again. :-) - ask -- ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 05:16:34PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Simon Cozens wrote: > > I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5 > > terms) what it will *mean*. > > Fine, you're using perl5 as pseudocode. > I could do that too. But it has no bearing on the > desira

RE: what I meant about hungarian notation

> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:50:17PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > > Pardon my indelicacy, but - Screw how it looks in Perl5. > > I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5 > terms) what it will *mean*. nice save p

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

Simon Cozens wrote: > I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5 > terms) what it will *mean*. Fine, you're using perl5 as pseudocode. I could do that too. But it has no bearing on the desirability of anyone's proposed perl6 syntax or semantics. -- John Porter

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:50:17PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Pardon my indelicacy, but - Screw how it looks in Perl5. I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5 terms) what it will *mean*. -- Use an accordion. Go to jail. -- KFOG, San Francisco

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

Simon Cozens wrote: > It's really, really easy. Just stick a -> between the variable and > the brace, and you have Perl 5. Pardon my indelicacy, but - Screw how it looks in Perl5. We can make it mean anything, and appear anyhow we want. IOW, "what makes sense" in Perl6 isn't defined by how we wer

RE: Apoc2 - concerns

> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:25:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: > > There must be some reason why a language like Sather isn't more popular. > > I think that iters are part of the problem. > > That smacks of the Politician's Syllogism: > Something is wrong. > This is something. > Theref

RE: what I meant about hungarian notation

Edward Peschko wrote: > > As to what the combined > > > > $bar[$foo] > > > > would mean: that depends on what $bar contains. > > > I like visual clues to tell me > what type of variable > something is. And I disagree strongly with trying to > steamroller the language's > design paper-flat as

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:38:31PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > What is the meaning of the following four expressions in Perl6? > > @bar[$foo]; > > %bar{$foo}; > > @bar{$foo}; > > %bar[$foo]; > $bar[$foo]; > $bar{$foo}; It's really, really e

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

> (i.e. ordered or "associative"). A (probably futile, but one has to try) plea for people to use "numbered" rather than "ordered". @foo = ['England', 'France', 'Germany'];# unordered %foo = {First => Fred', Last => 'Bloggs']; # ordered (I'd also suggest "named" instead of the scie

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 10:11:01PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:38:31 +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > >You forgot > > > > $bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference > > $bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference > > As to what the combined > > $bar[$foo] > >

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

> As someone else pointed out (I forget who). But beginners are not > always the best people to ask. Beginner don't stay beginners for > long I think the quote was. And as I said before, I agree. I picked the beginners list as much because it was active as anything else. They are *somebody* afte

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

Bart Lateur wrote: > As to what the combined > $bar[$foo] > would mean: that depends on what $bar contains. I think it would depend on what the declared type of @bar was (i.e. ordered or "associative"). -- John Porter

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, 14 May 2001 20:38:31 +0100, Graham Barr wrote: >You forgot > > $bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference > $bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference As to what the combined $bar[$foo] would mean: that depends on what $bar contains. (Aw! That hurt!) -- Bar

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:51:08PM -0500, Me wrote: > > survey ? I never saw any survey, > > It was an informal finger-in-the-wind thing I sent to > a perl beginners list. Nothing special, just a quick > survey. > > http://www.self-reference.com/cgi-bin/perl6plurals.pl As someone else pointed

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:58:31PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Graham Barr wrote: > > As I said in another mail, consider > > $bar[$foo]; > > $bar{$foo}; > > But if @bar is known to be one kind of array or > the other, where is the ambiguosity that that is > meant to avoid? I did not say it

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

Graham Barr said: > I am not interested in continuing this in private. As you wish. > If you don't want your comments public then be quite. I thought it was best for the list if we had some private exchanges first to reduce noise. I'll try to remember that you don't like that approach. > surv

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

Graham Barr wrote: > As I said in another mail, consider > $bar[$foo]; > $bar{$foo}; But if @bar is known to be one kind of array or the other, where is the ambiguosity that that is meant to avoid? -- John Porter

Re: Apoc2 - concerns

> Perhaps it's because the people who are capable of writing such a > module, are the ones who don't need it. But, not everyone is a conway. Immortality at last...I appear to have become a common noun. ;-) Damian

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

> > @bar[$foo]; # A > > %bar{$foo}; # B > > @bar{$foo}; # C > > %bar[$foo]; # D > > > You forgot > > $bar[$foo]; # $bar is an array reference > $bar{$foo}; # $bar is a hash reference I can't argue with that. My vote is now against conflating []

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:41:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Damian Conway wrote [and John Porter reformats]: > > > > @bar[$foo]; # Access element int($foo) of array @bar > > %bar{$foo}; # Access entry "$foo" of hash %bar > > @bar{$foo}; # Syntax error > > %bar[$foo]; # Syntax error > > And w

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

> When all the smoke clears, it will be relatively simple to declare an > ordered hash probably on the order of adding a single word to its > declaration. Yep. In fact, it's now relatively simple in Perl 5. You just grab the Attribute::Handlers and Tie::SortHash modules and add a sing

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

Damian Conway wrote [and John Porter reformats]: > > @bar[$foo]; # Access element int($foo) of array @bar > %bar{$foo}; # Access entry "$foo" of hash %bar > @bar{$foo}; # Syntax error > %bar[$foo]; # Syntax error And why is that superior to: @bar[$foo]; # Access element int($foo) of array @b

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:23:56PM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote: > At 08:10 PM 05-14-2001 +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > >On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:56:01PM -0500, Me wrote: > > > > Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ? > > > > > > > > $foo = '1.2'; > > > > @bar[$foo]; > > > > > > Thi

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

I'm not buying into the argument...just providing data: > What is the meaning of the following four expressions in Perl6? > > @bar[$foo]; # A Access element int($foo) of array @bar > %bar{$foo}; # B Access entry "$foo" of hash %bar > @bar{$foo}; # C

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

At 08:10 PM 05-14-2001 +0100, Graham Barr wrote: >On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:56:01PM -0500, Me wrote: > > > Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ? > > > > > > $foo = '1.2'; > > > @bar[$foo]; > > > > This is an argument against conflating @ and %. > >No it is not. > > > It has no

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:56:01PM -0500, Me wrote: > > Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ? > > > > $foo = '1.2'; > > @bar[$foo]; > > This is an argument against conflating @ and %. No it is not. > It has nothing to do with using [] instead of {}. Yes it does. I was aski

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

> Hm, OK. What does this access and using what method ? > > $foo = '1.2'; > @bar[$foo]; This is an argument against conflating @ and %. It has nothing to do with using [] instead of {}. (I accept that the @/% issue is problematic. Otoh, I don't yet see @/% conflation as being obviously a b

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 12:32:37PM -0500, Me wrote: > > an ordered hash is common > > Arrays too. > > > > not wise ... to alter features just for beginners. > > Agreed. > > > > (PS 11 people isn't a statistic, its a night at the pub) > > Your round... > > > The extra complexi

Re: SECOND SYSTEM EFFECT!

Michael G Schwern writes: : PS Someone's going to argue that Perl 6 isn't a second system, its : the Nth system. The exact value of N doesn't really matter, we're : still very much in danger of the second system effect. Yes, one need only read through all the RFCs to get an idea how bad it could

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

> an ordered hash is common Arrays too. > not wise ... to alter features just for beginners. Agreed. > (PS 11 people isn't a statistic, its a night at the pub) Your round... The extra complexity of a separate hash syntax might be justified for other reasons, but not the ones

Re: perl5 to perl6

(I think I've got the attributions right.) On Fri, 11 May 2001, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 05:02:39PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Speaking as someone that has often had to work on C, Perl, Verilog and VHDL >

Re: SECOND SYSTEM EFFECT!

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:15:09PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: > "The general tendency is to over-design the second system, using all > the ideas and frills that were cautiously sidetracked on the first > one. The result ... is a 'big pile'." > -- Fred Brooks Jr, "Th

SECOND SYSTEM EFFECT!

I'm covered in software engineering books at the moment writing up conference stuff and I happened to crack open a copy of "The Mythical Man-Month" and felt I should remind everyone about the... --> *** SECOND SYSTEM EFFECT *** <-- which I'm sure we all know about but sometimes f

Re: Apoc2 - concerns

On Mon, 14 May 2001 12:39:11 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >I think the more immediate problem with Sather is that it's totally obscure. >I'd never heard of it. I'd never read any articles about it. It has no >publicity. If people haven't heard of it, it'll remain unpopular.

Re: Apoc2 - concerns

On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:25:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: > There must be some reason why a language like Sather isn't more popular. > I think that iters are part of the problem. That smacks of the Politician's Syllogism: Something is wrong. This is something. Therefore this is wro

Re: Apoc2 - concerns

On Thu, 10 May 2001 17:15:09 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >> What you could do, is treat an iterator as "something similar to reading >> a line from a file". Tied filehandles allow something like it in Perl5. > >You know, if what you say is true, I'd expect to find a module on CPAN which >turns the

Re: what I meant about hungarian notation

On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 11:37:01PM -0500, Me wrote: > Yes. But I'm not sure that: > > # ordered > @array = (1, 2, 3, 5, 8); > > # unordered > %hash = (Fred => 22, Jane => 30); > > is more or less typical than: > > # unordered: > @array = ('England', 'France', 'Germany'); >