On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:03:03PM -0500, Rod Adams wrote:
If you insist on using A and Z, at least make them \A and \Z, to give a
stronger visual cue that something different is happening.
Some other ideas ...
^A..^Z Too confusing with $^A and $^Z ?
^A..^? Well, if
Larry Wall skribis 2004-09-03 17:08 (-0700):
The element with index -1. Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the
minus notation to count from the end. We probably need to come up
with some other notation for the beginning and end indexes.
@array.abs[0];
@array.abs[-1];
.abs would
John Williams skribis 2004-09-03 23:06 (-0600):
(A and Z)
I think I'd prefer alpha and omega.
Why not use Cyrillic or Korean or the secret code alphabet we used in
school?
I don't like using letters for array indexes, but if they're used,
please keep it ascii :)
Juerd
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What happens when the Pascal programmer declares
my int @ints is shape(-10..10);
Should that really all be in core? Why not let the user create his own
derived array that does what she wants?
Honestly I don't see the point why all normal array usage
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:41:05AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
: (I'm not (yet) familiar with Parrot's ManagedStruct and UnManagedStruct
: types but there's probably valuable experience there.)
Quite likely.
Well, *ManagedStruct is already working pretty well.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 02:44:52PM -, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski):
*) extract substring
Rather than that, wouldn't you prefer to make substring of target
string the actual target of all these?
Yes, yes, yes, this would be far more useful.
Pm
According to Dan Sugalski:
At 2:44 PM + 9/3/04, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski):
*) extract substring
Rather than that, wouldn't you prefer to make substring of target
string the actual target of all these?
Only if the resulting substring'd be
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #31443]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31443
Currently, Configure.pl checks if your compiler is gcc before it
determines
Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: What happens when the Pascal programmer declares
:
: my int @ints is shape(-10..10);
:
: Does it blow up?
No.
: If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1 or the
At Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:08:00 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1 or the last element?
The element with index -1. Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the
minus
# New Ticket Created by Leopold Toetsch
# Please include the string: [perl #31446]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31446
$ perl Configure.pl --verbose-step=gcc
...
cc -L/usr/local/lib test.o -o
# New Ticket Created by Bernhard Schmalhofer
# Please include the string: [perl #31447]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org:80/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=31447
Hi,
this patch adds a POD section on top of 'src/nci_test.c'. I also
for, while, given, loop, etcetera can all be used without parens. Are
the parens around the parameter specification still required? If so,
why? In other languages it may make sense because parens are required
when calling functions too, but in Perl, they're not.
sub foo $foo, [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:47:29AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: What happens when the Pascal programmer declares
:
: my int @ints is shape(-10..10);
:
: Should that really all be in core? Why not let the user create his own
: derived array
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:30:27AM -0600, David Green wrote:
: I actually found things I liked in pretty much all the suggested
: alternatives, but none of them reached out and grabbed me by the throat
: the way nth did. It just seems more Perlish.
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:08:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: The argument to a shape specification is a semicolon list, just like
: the inside of a multidimensional
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, David Green wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
I'm still thinking A is the first one and Z is the last one. Someone
talk me out of it quick.
The actual issue is how to distinguish cardinal numbers from ordinals,
right? So if we
: On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:47:29AM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
: : Honestly I don't see the point why all normal array usage should be
: : slowed down just for the sake of some rare usage patterns.
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:48:54AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: Does it have to? Couldn't it
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Juerd wrote:
John Williams skribis 2004-09-03 23:06 (-0600):
(A and Z)
I think I'd prefer alpha and omega.
Why not use Cyrillic or Korean or the secret code alphabet we used in
school?
I meant the actual words alpha and omega, because they're like A and Z
but with
Larry Wall wrote:
David Green wrote:
: I actually found things I liked in pretty much all the suggested
: alternatives, but none of them reached out and grabbed me by the
: throat the way nth did. It just seems more Perlish.
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:17:36PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
: John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Ah ha, I didn't realize macros could override/replace existing control
: structures. Okay, ship it! :)
:
: They'd be no fun if they couldn't.
There is one caveat, of course. Precompiled
On 9/4/04 5:38 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 08:17:36PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
: John Siracusa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Ah ha, I didn't realize macros could override/replace existing control
: structures. Okay, ship it! :)
:
: They'd be no fun if they couldn't.
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:12:29 -0700, via RT Leopold Toetsch
[1] or they are here but as e.g. libgdbm.so.3 which the linker seems to
ignore.
I ran into this yesterday when trying to configure parrot on my debian
box. The (easy) solution was to to install the libgdbm-dev package,
which includes
On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last. So
@ints[1st..nth]
means
@ints[*]
Yeah, I was thinking something like that. And if the arg is an actual
array, maybe it returns the max dimension(s)? I think you'd get
On 9/4/04 6:58 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 05:59:18PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
Anyway, it'd be nice if Perl 6 supported some sort of equivalent to Mac OS
X's application wrappers: a dir tree containing all the files needed to run
Your Wonderful Perl Program. To
On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
(Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
Larry Wall wrote:
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
If it means the last, why not just use Clast?
Conflict with last LOOP? Hm, the context should be enough to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
Anyway, what it'll give me is official support for this type of thing.
Call me a crazy man, but I *like* the lack of official support.
I actually count it as a Good Thing that perl can be made to do cool stuff
without Larry having to explicitly declare
John Siracusa wrote:
Anyway, what it'll give me is official support for this type of thing. In
particular, the Perl 6 executable itself should know what to make of such a
specially formed dir tree how to adjust @INC automatically for me, what to
run, etc.--in the same way that Perl 5 knows to
David Green wrote:
Anyway, if we can have last, we should also have first (just for
people who don't mind all the extra typing).
No problem here, especially if C0th and Clast are synonyms - that is,
make ..., -4th, -3rd, -2nd, -1st, 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... be the
underlying mechanism, and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luke Palmer) wrote:
sub wn($n) { $n ?? wn($n-1)+1 :: $w }
$w2 = 0... + wn«0...;
assert($w2 == $w*2);
Just think of the possibilities! :-)
Hm. Needs more Unicode. =)
Seriously though, putting 1st, 2nd, nth, etc. in the language is
David Green wrote:
It is kind of comfortable. Which is why I think I'd like to keep the
redundant nth (if we have first and last), aka 'th (where nth($i)
and $i'th are just pre- and postfixed versions of each other).
Especially important since there's a potential ambiguity problem between
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
No problem here, especially if C0th and Clast are synonyms - that is,
make ..., -4th, -3rd, -2nd, -1st, 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... be the
underlying mechanism, and define Clast and Cfirst as synonyms for
C0th and C1st.
On 9/4/04 7:31 PM, Simon Cozens wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Siracusa) writes:
Anyway, what it'll give me is official support for this type of thing.
Call me a crazy man, but I *like* the lack of official support.
I actually count it as a Good Thing that perl can be made to do cool stuff
David Green wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
If C@foo[last+1]=$bar is equivalent to Cpush @foo, $bar, what
happens if you say C@foo[last+2]=$bar? While I like the notion that
subtracting from first or adding to last takes you beyond the bounds
of the list, you generally can't go more than
On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 18:44, John Siracusa wrote:
Without commenting on the issue of single-file bundling...
To bring it home, I think packaging and distribution is important enough to
warrant a standard, core-supported implementation.
I think the specially structured dir of files and its
35 matches
Mail list logo
