Larry Wall wrote:
Somebody needs to talk me out of using A..Z for the simple cases.
Larry
The Turing programming language uses splat to stand in for the length of
the array, so in Turing *a[*-1]* means what Perl 5 programmers mean when
they say *$a[-1]*.
However, splat is already quite heavil
Luke Palmer wrote:
That said, I have mixed feelings about the idea. I am thoroughly
convinced that ` can leave it's current job. Removing qx// would be
going a leap too far.
But I really hate the idea of removing `...` and leaving qx/.../. That
would leave qx// in the unenviable position of
Matthew Walton wrote:
Thomas A. Boyer wrote:
Matthew Walton wrote:
That could be problematic, because if Perl 6 sees something like:
my %myhash;
%myhash{'foo'} = 'bar';
It's going to think 'ahah', perl 5'. Because it doesn't contain any
Perl 6 k
Matthew Walton wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2004-04-13 at 13:16:02, David Cantrell wrote:
Perl 6, we are promised, will try to run "legacy" code unchanged. How
will it spot such legacy code?
My understanding has been that perl6 will assume a program is Perl 5
unless
it sees a Perl 6 keywo
> And, please, let's spawn no threads talking about how parentheses in font Foo
> on platform Bar look like they point outwards. Ulk.
Er... I meant to say "inwards". Else that sentence makes NO sense.
Double Ulk.
=thom
"You live and learn. Or you don't live long." --Lazarus Long
Damian Conway wrote:
> Correct. Although presumably this:
>
> my @d = @x »but« Foo;
Damian, somewhere in the conversation on hyper-ops you switched over from this syntax:
my @sum = @a «+» @b;
to this syntax:
my @sum = @a »+« @b;
(Since those two statements use non-ASCII charac
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> There's also the fun of:
>
> Dog bar(int);
> Cat bar(int);
>
> and
>
> xyzzy(Dog);
> xyzzy(Cat);
>
> with the call of:
>
> xyzzy(bar(1));
>
> Just one of the many brain-benders that I'm glad Larry has to deal
> with, not me. (Though this may be one
Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> *Now*, what to do about the fantastic magic that pointy-sub provides?
> The _spectacular_ win would be if we could just recognize an optional
> parameter list as part of a block.
>
> map @a : ($a,$b) {...} # params + closure = closure with params?
> for @a : ($a
David Whipp wrote:
> $b = 7, 6, 5
> @b = 7, 6, 5
I understand that C's *interpretation* of the comma operator will be expunged from
Perl 6. But unless comma's *precedence* is also changing, neither of those statements
would build a list with three elements.
It seems to me that
$b = 7, 6,
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> : In summary: assuming Perl 6 allows user-defined while-ish structures, how
> : would it be done?
>
> I think the secret is to allow easy attachment of regex rules to sub
> and parameter declarations. There's little point in re-inventing
> regex syntax using declarations.
Aaron Sherman wrote:
> An example:
>
> $pid = fork() // -1;
> if $pid < 0 {
> # error ...
> } else unless $pid {
> # Parent
> } else if $pid > 0 {
> # Child
> } else {
> # Huh? Can't happen
> }
Of course, your indentation implies a differen
11 matches
Mail list logo
