Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Damian Conway wrote: > > Simon observed: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: >> > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias >> > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write >> > more-grammatically-corr

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Personally, I'd rather not deal with a toke.c that knows more of > /usr/dict/words than I do. use thesaurus; -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:17, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > > What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-) > > Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6 > interpreter in Perl 5 for testing. We ha

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Bryan C. Warnock sniped: > >> Okay, this part has me confused. > > > > And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping > > the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing > > both. > > What? You didn't test it before you po

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 09:11:21PM -0400, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > What? You didn't test it before you posted it? For shame! ;-) Bah. Damian and I are working on ways of prototyping the Perl 6 interpreter in Perl 5 for testing. We have the variable semantics sorted out, but properties might

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On 5/15/01 9:07 PM, Damian Conway wrote: > Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally > unset) property on the node reference would have returned C which > would undergo the usual boolean conversion in the C, and the usual > promotion to zero in the numerical context o

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tuesday 15 May 2001 21:07, Damian Conway wrote: > John Siracusa wrote: >> Okay, this part has me confused. > > And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping > the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing > both. What? You didn't test it

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

John Siracusa wrote: > Okay, this part has me confused. And rightly so: it was a screw-up. I lost track of whether I was keeping the property on the value or on the node reference and ended up doing both. Interestingly, the code would still have *worked* since the (originally unset) proper

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Damian Conway wrote: > Simon observed: > >> On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: >> >- A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias >> > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write >> > more-grammatically-

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon observed: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias > > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write > > more-grammatically-correct statements such as "my $var has

Re: Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > The only worry/problem/etc that I wonder about is the potential overuse > of the "is" keyword. It is a very nice syntactic tool, but when I see > something like this: > >$*ARGS is chomped; > > I wonder if that wouldn't be better

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:55:41PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > fine.. except if it was about TMTOWTDI, both could have been included... There's more than one way not to do it, too. :) -- "Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the same entropy to create bugs instead?" --

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Edward Peschko writes: > Exactly. This has not been finalized in an Apocalypse - hence the question > whether or not it has been 'blessed'. > > So - has this decision been made? I've heard Larry saying things that make me think strict and -w will not be on by default. I'll leave it to him to c

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 12:25:34AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > > yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings' > > department. > > Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well. Exactly. This has n

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Okay, this part has me confused. Here we build up a node hash: my %node; %node{LEFT} = undef; %node{RIGHT} = undef; %node{VALUE} = $val is Found(0); $tree = %node; What has the Found property here? I look at that and I think the value associated with %node hash's VALUE

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon Cozens writes: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote: > > i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do > > similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone > > else to come up with the 7 other ways to prove owners

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:04:52PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings' > department. Oh, you wanted warnings to be on by default? Oh well. > well, better in the sense that it shows off perl6's style and new features. > And is shor

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

At 11:54 PM 5/15/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote: > > i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do > > similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone > > else to come up with the 7

Re: Must pseudo-hashes die?

At 03:20 PM 5/15/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: >At 07:47 PM 5/15/01 +, Ton Hospel wrote: >> > PSEUDO-HASHES MUST DIE! >> > >> >>I happen to like them > >I like the feature of a hash whose keys are fixed in the sense that you >have to jump through a hoop to add a new one. Without hav

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

> > For example, I see that 'use warnings' and 'use strict' are still at the top > > of the page. > > Yes. Is there some point you want to make about that? yes, that there shouldn't need to be - at least in the 'use warnings' department. > > print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n"

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On 5/15/01 6:54 PM, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:49:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: >> Looks nicer to me. > > Did you know that other people might find other things nicer? > TMTOWDTI has not been ruled out for Perl 6. Yeah, yeah, but come on, who out there is running around

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:47:36PM -0700, Mark Koopman wrote: > i think that's the idea...they have similar meanings, so they should do > similar things. hey it's the English language, i'll leave it up to someone > else to come up with the 7 other ways to prove ownership of a property :) Persona

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 06:49:53PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote: > Looks nicer to me. Did you know that other people might find other things nicer? TMTOWDTI has not been ruled out for Perl 6. -- Imbalance of power corrupts and monopoly of power corrupts absolutely. -- Genji

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On 5/15/01 5:59 PM, Edward Peschko wrote: > would be better off written as... ...speaking of which: my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2); What, no caps? my int ($PRE, $IN, $POST) is constant = (0..2); Looks nicer to me...or are all-caps vars reserved for internal use in Perl

Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword

So, I finally got around to reading the link Nat sent out: http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/05/08/exegesis2.html First off, nice job Damian (as always), it looks excellent. I like the examples of stuff like this: my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2); Awesome. Simple, Perlish, easy

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Simon Cozens wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > >> - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias >>for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write >>more-grammatically-correct statements such as "my $var has >>Colo

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Edward Peschko writes: > Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'? What is open to > debate on this? As Simon says, ask whatever questions you want. > print "Post order: "; show($root,$post); print "\n"; > would be better off written as: > print "Post order: &show($root, $post)\n";

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:30:07PM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote: > - A while ago, someone suggested that the word 'has' be an alias > for 'is', so that when you roll your own properties, you could write > more-grammatically-correct statements such as "my $var has > Colors(3)". Since 'are' is be

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Dave Storrs writes: > at first I was alarmed and a bit appalled at a lot of the > changes...e.g., the 'HASH $tree is rw' parameter declaration. > "Jesus," I thought "if I wanted a typed languaged, I'd use C++." > The more I read, however, the more I became convinced that these > were actually eleg

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

First of all: Damian, thank you for putting this together. This is a really good way to dispell the concerns/doubts/pick-a-word that people (including myself) have been having about whether Perl6 would be the language that we all know and love. There was a great deal of stuff in there and I

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 02:59:07PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > Ok, question here. Are these exegesises 'blessed'? It is impossible to answer this question without knowing what you mean by the word. Larry has seen and edited the article; is that what you mean? > What is open to debate on this?

Re: Must pseudo-hashes die?

At 07:47 PM 5/15/01 +, Ton Hospel wrote: > > PSEUDO-HASHES MUST DIE! > > > >I happen to like them I like the feature of a hash whose keys are fixed in the sense that you have to jump through a hoop to add a new one. Without having to download Tie::SecureHash and accept the other fe

Re: Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:32:46PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Damian's writing a series of articles parallel to Larry's Apocalypses. > These "Exegesis" articles will show full perl6 programs, with > commentary exlaining the new features. > > The first Exegesis (numbered 2, to keep in sync

Re: Perl, the new generation

Stephen P. Potter writes: > It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and > especially with 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no > longer a fun litle language that can be easily used to hack out > solutions to problems. It is now (becoming) a full featured > language, quit

Damian Conway's Exegesis 2

Damian's writing a series of articles parallel to Larry's Apocalypses. These "Exegesis" articles will show full perl6 programs, with commentary exlaining the new features. The first Exegesis (numbered 2, to keep in sync with Larry) shows a perl6 version of a binary tree program from the Perl Cook

Re: perl5 to perl6

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:22:04PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote: > This is quite a simple little script. The majority of the changes that are > being talked about won't ever show up in this. It'd be nice if you could > show something a little more complex. The problem is that some people are

Re: perl5 to perl6

Stephen P. Potter writes: > This is quite a simple little script. The majority of the changes > that are being talked about won't ever show up in this. It'd be > nice if you could show something a little more complex. The point I was making is that the perl4 stuff won't change significantly. T

Re: Perl, the new generation

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote: > Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered: > | Peter Scott writes: > | : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more > > > | : dramatic change in the name? >

Re: Apoc2 - concerns

Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered: | Simon Cozens writes: | : On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 04:42:07PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: | : > : while ($STDIN) { ... } | : > I'm wondering what this will do? | : >$thingy = $STDIN; | : > This seems to have t

perlsmall (was Re: Perl, the new generation)

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:01:47PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote: > It seems to me that recently (the last two years or so) and especially with > 6, perl is no longer the SAs friend. It is no longer a fun litle language > that can be easily used to hack out solutions to problems. See, I have a

Re: perl5 to perl6

Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whi spered: | Here's a program I use to count messages in my mailfile: This is quite a simple little script. The majority of the changes that are being talked about won't ever show up in this. It'd be nice if you could

Re: Perl, the new generation

Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered: | Peter Scott writes: | : So, I wonder aloud, do we want to signify that degree of change with a more > | : dramatic change in the name? | | I'm inclined to think that people will be more likely to migrate if | the