Larry Wall wrote:
Yes, * was originally a no-op in list context, but I think now we can
use it to deref a list that would otherwise not interpolate itself.
It maps better onto how a C programmer thinks, and if in scalar
context it also happens to defer the signature checking to use the
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 08:59:36AM +0100, James Mastros wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: Yes, * was originally a no-op in list context, but I think now we can
: use it to deref a list that would otherwise not interpolate itself.
: It maps better onto how a C programmer thinks, and if in scalar
:
On 2004-03-26 at 08:16:07, Larry Wall wrote:
And say isn't in there because of APL or PHP. It's actually inspired
by something worse in Ruby.
Presumably by something worse you mean puts? Not a great name, to
be sure, but it does have a venerable tradition behind it. :)
I do like having an
Larry Wall writes:
: Also, how does the use of *$foo differ from @$foo here? Is the later
: going away? (I'd think that horrible, for the same reason as above: C
: is confusing because it's not always clear what you get when you *.)
No, @$foo is not going away. You can write it that way
Larry Wall skribis 2004-03-25 12:33 (-0800):
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: say @bar.elems; # prints 1
: Csay? Not Cprint?
It's just a println spelled Huffmanly.
What happened to the principle that things that work
Juerd writes:
Larry Wall skribis 2004-03-25 12:33 (-0800):
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: say @bar.elems;# prints 1
: Csay? Not Cprint?
It's just a println spelled Huffmanly.
Can't we instead just have a
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:41:23AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Okay, good. So this is correct:
:
: my $baz = @foo;
: @bar = map { ... } @$baz;
:
: (to be equivalent of mapping over @foo)?
Yes, that's correct.
: Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
:
Larry Wall writes:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:41:23AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Is @{$foo} going away? More specifically, how do I write that map if
: $baz is some more complex expression, and I don't want to use * (say I
: want to adhere if map decides to change its signature to take a
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 15:20, Luke Palmer wrote:
When writing Perl 5, I always find myself writing @{ more often than @$.
Maybe it's just a bad habit that I don't tend to use a lot of
intermediate variables.
Well, one of the big problems with Perl 5's dereferencing is that it's
painful to
On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 13:11, Goplat wrote:
@(...) is the list context operator in S3. I hope array references won't
explode in list context, that would be very annoying when making
multi-dimentional arrays:
@foo = ([1, 2], [3, 4]) # oops, would be (1, 2, 3, 4)
@foo = ($([1, 2]),
Aaron Sherman writes:
I would expect [] to force itself into scalar context anyway. Is there
ever a reason to want otherwise? Clearly the entire point of [] is to
create a scalar array ref from a list of arguments.
More to the point is there ever a reason to want any array ref in list
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 08:42:53AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
: Aaron Sherman writes:
: More to the point is there ever a reason to want any array ref in list
: context to NOT explode other than []? I can't think of any.
:
: push @a, $b
:
: Is it too non-obvious that if $b is an array
Larry Wall wrote:
say @bar.elems; # prints 1
Csay? Not Cprint?
--
Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:35:46AM -0800, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: say @bar.elems;# prints 1
:
: Csay? Not Cprint?
It's just a println spelled Huffmanly.
Larry
Luke Palmer writes:
for @(@ranges[1]) - $i {
Oooh, where did that dereferencing syntax come from, using parens rather
than braces?
Smylers
Smylers wrote:
Luke Palmer writes:
for @(@ranges[1]) - $i {
Oooh, where did that dereferencing syntax come from, using parens rather
than braces?
It isn't a dereferencing syntax--it's a context-forcing syntax (one I'm
intimately familiar with), which forces @ranges[1] into list context.
--- Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luke Palmer writes:
for @(@ranges[1]) - $i {
Oooh, where did that dereferencing syntax come from, using parens rather
than braces?
@(...) is the list context operator in S3. I hope array references won't
explode in list context, that would be very
17 matches
Mail list logo
