On Wed, 9 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a grain
> of sand - the beginnings of a pearl. Of course, nobody would have got
> it, so we went with a cat instead, which is even more oblique.
Hmmm, I suppose a blown-up grain of sand cou
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:32:29PM -0400, John L. Allen wrote:
> > I think someone may have mentioned this already, but why not just say
> > that if you want '.' to mean concatenation, you have to surround it on
> &g
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:19:22PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > At the moment I'm leaning toward ^ for concat, and ~ for xor. That
>
> I think that would lead to confusion too. In many languages ^ is
> xor and ~ is a bitwise invert. It is that way i
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Robert Mathews wrote:
> "John L. Allen" wrote:
> > Um, what would your proposal gain you over
> >
> > $z = eval "qq{$y}";
> >
> > other than conciseness, elegance and speed (which may be quite enough!) ?
>
&
On 29 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Make Perl's powerful string interpolation facilities are available to
> variables, in addition to literals.
>
> =head1 DESCRIPTION
>
> Given:
>
> $foo = 'def';
> $bar = 'ghi';
> $x = "abc$foo$bar";
> $y = 'abc$foo$bar';
>
> There is no way to tu
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> I think perhaps that Uri was suggesting more a common letter prefix,
> such as:
>
> freadable($file);
> fwritable($file);
> fexecutable($file);
>
> Than a piece of bastardized Pythonesque syntax. ;-)
Was that what the foo.bar("baz") syntax was
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > perl -e 'print -rwx $_'
> > Can't call method "rwx" on an undefined value at -e line 1.
>
> Yeah, but read the error - Perl's parsing that as:
>
> [nwiger@matrix:~]$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'print -rwx $_';
> print -$_->rwx;
> -e syntax
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > I'd even go so far as to say that the current -X syntax should be
> > _extended_, to allow for multiple tests at once, maybe by way of a
> > leading caret (mnemonic "all"):
> >
> > -^rwx; # $_ is readable, writable and executable
> >
> >
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Clayton Scott wrote:
> It:
> + stacks multiple tests quite cleanly without excess verbiage
>(if (-e && -T && -s && -x){...} gets a little tedious especially
>if you don't use $_)
> + introduces only 1 new keyword ("file" seems bad, but maybe not)
> + does not bre
