Dan Sugalski wrote:
it's not exactly exciting watching two people hit return three times
in front of a roomful of people.
Although watching two people hit each other in the face with custard
pies three times in front of a roomful of people may be a lot more fun.
Progamming language
Butler, Gerald wrote:
How about: tocsin
[...thinking out loud...]
I'm not sure it's a good idea to use an obscure word, even if it is
appropriate to the usage. It should be a word that the average user
would recognise, and hopefully be able to intuit some sense of what it
does.
How about
Dan wrote:
Should be FINALIZE.
Although some in the non-US English speaking world might say it should
be FINALISE.
Perhaps FINAL might be a better choice? That would please more of the
people for more of the time (or displease them for less of the time).
A
I'm so happy! I just found out, totally by accident, that I can type
the « and » characters by pressing AltGr + Z and AltGr + X,
respectively.
Apologies if this is common knowledge, but it was news to me, and I
thought I'd share this little Perl6 of wisdom.
Your mileage may vary, of
Larry Wall wrote:
multi sub *scramble (String $s) returns String {...}
[...]
Or you can just call it directly as a function:
scramble(hello)
Can you also call scramble as a class method?
class String is extended {
method scramble { ..etc... }
}
String.scramble(hello)
A
Larry Wall wrote:
Yet another approach is to *replace* dot with something that mutates:
@array!sort
@array?sort
Either of those would work syntactically in that case, since neither !
nor ? is expected as a binary operator.
What about ? is as a ternary operator:
@foo?bar:baz;
Luke Palmer wrote:
But I'm still sure that the unicode-deficient would rather write:
I suspect the unicode-deficient would rather write Ruby.
Adding unicode operators to Perl will just reinforce its reputation as
a line noise language.
I know it has been said before, and I'm sure it will be
Luke Palmer wrote:
I think $() will help somewhat, as will interpolating method calls, but
for a compiler, I'd really like PHP-like parse switching. That is, I
could do something like (I'll use $ and $ for ? and ?):
Check out the new scanner module for Template Toolkit v3. It does this
Uri Guttman wrote:
i say we just sell them a license to use the US constitution.
Bill Gates wrote:
What is it with these Linux guys?
i say we just sell them a license to use Windoze.
:-)
A
Larry Wall wrote:
Anyway, this all implies that use of a role as a method name defaults to
returning whether the type in question matches the subtype. That is,
when you say:
$foo.true
$bar.red
[...]
$bar.red
[...]
$baz.Byte
it's asking whether the Int property fulfills
chromatic wrote:
The thinking at the last design meeting was that you'd explicitly say
Consider this class closed; I won't muck with it in this application
at compile time if you need the extra optimization in a particular
application.
In Dylan, this is called a sealed class. It tells the
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
This is mostly just a gratuitous message so that Piers has something
to talk about in the next summary
I bet Leon has something to say about that.
Better would be We're working on X and have hashed out the details
of Y but are having problems with Z
Something
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
We already have the ability to embed foreign languages (XML, HTML,
whatever) using here docs:
$myml = MyXmlParser-new( '(MARKUP)');
thingy
blahblah blah/blah
/thingy
(MARKUP)
True, but what kind of magic is hiding inside MyXmlParser?
One problem is
Robin Berjon wrote:
I just have yet to see someone point at one place
where Perl 5 hinders XML processing in such a way that Perl 6 could help.
If my understanding of the design of Perl 6 is correct, the lexer, parser
and any other related components will be highly configurable and/or
Robin Berjon wrote:
But as someone that also had to parse other people's random
formats before we had XML, I would like to stress strongly the fact that
the current situation is *much* better than it was.
True, but you're also missing the point that XML is a festering pile
of steaming camel
Steve Fink wrote:
[...] does fit well with the -Oj flag. Parrot -- now with extra juice!
-Oj Simpson?
Parrot -- now get away with murder! :-)
A
Sam Vilain wrote:
Associations *are* fundamental object things. Presenting them in terms of
attributes is the real hack.
Associations *are* fundamental things, but I don't think they are part
of an object.
They describe relationships between objects and should exist independantly
and
Sam Vilain wrote:
No. All I'm saying is that this sort of construct:
*{$_} = \{Class::$_} foreach (qw(method method2 method3));
Like mixins? Perhaps something like this:
class My::Class;
mixin My::Random::Number::Generator qw( rand );
mixin My::Serialisation::Marshall qw( freeze
Allison Randal wrote:
It's a balance, like everything else in design.
use Yin::Yang;
s/design/life/g;
A
Dan Sugalski wrote much sense, including these gems:
*) Method: Some sort of action that an object can do. Methods are
global and public--only one foo method for an object. Methods may be
inherited from parent classes, or redefined in a particular class.
Redefined methods hide parent class
Adam Turoff wrote:
The problem with cons/car/cdr is that they're fundemental operations.
Graham *has* learned from perl, and is receptive to the idea that
fundemental operators should be huffman encoded (lambda - fn). It
would be easy to simply rename car/cdr to first/rest, but that loses
On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 12:55:56PM -0800, Rich Morin wrote:
I'm not a Lisp enthusiast, by and large, but I think he makes some
interesting observations on language design. Take a look if you're
feeling adventurous...
I can't help feeling slightly deflated. Given the chance to re-design
Lisp
Paul Johnson wrote:
When I later saw it using mutt in an xterm, the tilde was at the top of
the character, where I was more used to seeing it and it didn't look like
an arrow any more, nor did it look very good to me.
Ah yes, that's the problem. On all my fonts, the tilde appears at
the top
Damian Conway wrote:
Really? We don't have any trouble in Perl 5 with an = character
being used in various unrelated operators:
== comparison
=assignment
~= match
s/~=/=~/
= comma
= less than or equal to
But these are all roughly related to the concept
Damian Conway wrote:
[...] ~ and ~
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
I too think this idea is fabulous. You are my hero.
I also think this is semantically fabulous but syntactically slightly
dubious. '~' reads 'match' in my book, so I'm reading the operators
as 'match left' and 'match right'. Or
Luke Palmer wrote:
The difference between POST and NEXT is simply that POST fails to
refrain from executing after the final iteration, while NEXT does not.
Or in other words:
The difference between POST and NEXT is that POST executes after the final
iteration, while NEXT does not.
NEXT
Steve Fink wrote:
(UNPIN would probably be better than RELEASE, huh?)
Maybe ATTACH / DETACH or AQUIRE / RELEASE?
A
Simon Cozens wrote:
Once again we're getting steadily closer to inventing Ruby.
Agreed, but I don't think this is necessarily a Bad Thing.
Larry said ~~ People have been borrowing ideas from Perl for a long time,
now it's time to borrow some back.
I like Ruby, I like dot ops, and I like being
Michael Lazzaro asked:
foo $a, $b, $c, $d; # how many args?
Damian Conway wrote:
Yep. Can't be known unless predeclared and hence compile-time discernible.
And methods can't be discerned in the presence of run-time dispatch.
Is that not the purpose of an interface? That is, to specify at
Me wrote:
Well, I could argue that c) already exists
in the form of passing parameters in parens.
This reminds me of the Law of Demeter. It specifies what your methods
should and shouldn't be able to do if you want to build a bright, shiny
system that never has bugs, maintains itself, turns
Larry Wall wrote:
So I was thinking it'd be better to use something different to
represent the outer topic...
How about this:
$_ # current topic
$__ # outer topic
$___ # outer outer topic
...etc...
I also wondered if $= might be a suitable alias to the current
Quoted from Seven Deadly Sins of Introductory Programming Language
Design [1] by Linda McIver and Damian Conway:
We have shown over one thousand novice programming students
the C/C++ expression:
the quick brown fox + jumps over the lazy dog
and asked them what they believe the
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
[...some good points...]
and has resulted in us revisiting decisions *repeatedly*
Simon Cozens wrote:
[...some good ideas...]
[1] You can tell I've been rereading MMM...
Maybe there's some benefit to be had from revisiting old material? :-)
I can't think of any
Nicholas Clark wrote:
I think that the first syntax
class Car::Q is Car renames(eject = ejector_seat)
is CD_Player renames(drive = cd_drive);
makes it more clear that I'd like to pick and choose which methods
the composite object gets from which parent.
But now you've
John Williams wrote:
Reaction #2: Inheritance would automatically delegate all those
methods, so again, in what way does inheritance _not_ solve the problem?
Many real life systems are composed from elements, not inherited from
elements. A car is not a wheel, but is composed from 4 (or
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:22:02PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Last year at JAOO I stumbled on this thing called Subject-Oriented
Programming which looked interesting.
There are a bunch of advanced programming techniques like this that
all fit under the same umbrella:
* Subject
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...] whose type is simultaneously Cstr and Cint.
Has any thought yet gone into the builtin Perl types and what they will
be called in Perl 6? Will there be a difference between the Cref() of
something and the type(s) that Cisa() returns?
In keeping with the lower
A short time ago, in a nearby thread, Larry Wall wrote:
Perhaps we should just explain continuations in terms of time travel.
Funny. I wrote a message to this effect the other night, but decided
not to send it (too tired to decide if I was talking sense or nonsense).
I was about to propose
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 03:20:35PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
I'm pretty sure the iterators they build are just closures with named
arguments, and behave as any other closure would behave.
Not quite. Ruby iterators expect a block. This is very much like a closure
except that block
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 06:51:19AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
released in the Grammar:: namespace. Including Grammar::HTML and Grammar::XML.
I have no doubt that, once Perl 6 is available, we'll see a rash of modules
:://www.wolframscience.com/
#
# Written by Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
# the same terms as Perl and/or Parrot.
#
#
# -- configurable options --
# I0
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 08:49:23AM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
for $results.get_next() {
FIRST { print Results:BR; }
NEXT { print HR; }
LAST { print Done.; }
print $_;
}
How about something like this:
for $results.each() {
print
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:24:13PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
So the main reason that objects can function as hashes is so that the
user can poke an object into an interface expecting a hash and have it
make sense, to the extent that the object is willing to be viewed like
that.
AKA the
On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 02:57:42PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
b) 'a\b' was printing being stored as a\b and not ab
The patch for the first looks good, but I'm not sure about the
second. Have we settled on the behavior of single-quoted strings?
Don't know about settled but I suggest that
I came across a nice picture of a parrot in New Scientist while riding
the train home one night and it inspired me to sketch up a quick parrot
logo. By chance, a new version of Photoshop landed on my desk the very
next day, giving me the perfect opportunity to dust off the graphics tablet.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 08:30:41AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: INIT, DESTROY, AUTOLOAD, etc., all make sense to me. They really are
: special blocks that normally only occur once in a file. But CATCH and
: NEXT are part of normal syntax. I don't think they're any more unusual
: in their
can fix Perl so that it can tell the above
apart, then good, but I think it's a separate problem to the lvalue
subs.
A
--
Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signature regenerating. Please remain seated.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
.
A
--
Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signature regenerating. Please remain seated.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] For a good time: http://www.kfs.org/~abw/
48 matches
Mail list logo
