John Porter writes:
: Buddha Buck wrote:
: > Personally, I'd rather save let for:
:
: I appreciate the sentiment, but I believe it's misplaced
: and unnecessary.
:
:
: > (let ($x,$y,$z,...) = (1,2,3,...) in { FOO })
: >
: > which would be equivilant to:
: >
: > ((sub {my ($x,$y,$z,...) = @_
Buddha Buck wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather save let for:
I appreciate the sentiment, but I believe it's misplaced
and unnecessary.
> (let ($x,$y,$z,...) = (1,2,3,...) in { FOO })
>
> which would be equivilant to:
>
> ((sub {my ($x,$y,$z,...) = @_; FOO })(1,2,3,...))
But it's also equivale
At 08:57 AM 5/19/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>The language will stay as "Perl", but the VM might get its own name.
Parrot! ;-P
And I see I need to draw some pictures, since Nat's explanation's not quite
what I'm thinking of at the moment. (Close though) I'll see about getting
somethin
Daniel S. Wilkerson writes:
> Therefore, if it isn't a back-end and it isn't a front-end, what is it?!
> Perl6 seems to be a "nothing sandwich". Not that this is bad, Zen is this
> way.
Simon's done a good job of explaining this, but I'll try too.
You're right, we're designing many things. Lar
At 03:31 AM 5/19/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:29:11PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> > Therefore, if it isn't a back-end and it isn't a front-end, what is it?!
>
>Both!
It's a dessert topping *and* a floor wax!
> > Can someone say what it is?
>
>It's true that
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:29:11PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> Therefore, if it isn't a back-end and it isn't a front-end, what is it?!
Both!
> Can someone say what it is?
OK. Most languages out there are separate from their implementation. For C,
you have an ANSI specification that tel
Please forgive the naiveté of this question.
1 - If Perl6 is going to have multiple back-ends, rather like the
cross-compilation feature of gcc, "Perl6" won't be a specific virtual
machine or back-end. (As Perl5 is now, and, say, Java has as a fundamental
part of its design.)
2 - If Perl6 is goi
Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let it be.
>
> Not a flame, but a suggestion:
>
> let $pi be constant;
Personally, I'd rather save let for:
(let ($x,$y,$z,...) = (1,2,3,...) in { ... })
which would be equivilant to:
((sub {my ($x,$y,$z,...) = @_; ... })(1,2,3,...))
Many fu
Let it be.
Not a flame, but a suggestion:
let $pi be constant;
That any better?
=Austin
--- Dan Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I've been reading "is" as a declarative imperative, something which
> | declares a property of something you are
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I've been reading "is" as a declarative imperative, something which
| declares a property of something you are creating. Here it's being
| used to modify the properties of something that already exists, and
| it reads funny to me. Many properties that o
y a bunch of "me too!"s.
> >
> > Keep the snide comments to yourself. Thanks.
>
> This was regarding a reply I had made to one of Nathan Wiger's
> posts in the "Re: Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword" thread.
>
> This is a case of mis
This was regarding a reply I had made to one of Nathan Wiger's
posts in the "Re: Exegesis2 and the "is" keyword" thread.
This is a case of miscommunication; the "bunch of me too"s was
referring to what _I_ was writing...that is, I was saying that the
At 10:51 AM 5/16/01 +0200, Carl Johan Berglund wrote:
>At 15.02 -0700 01-05-15, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> $*ARGS is chomped;
>>
>>I wonder if that wouldn't be better phrased as:
>>
>>autochomp $*ARGS;# $ARGS.autochomp
>
>I see your point, but I see a clear difference between these propertie
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/15/2001 17:49]:
>
> Is that autochomp as a keyword or autochomp as an indirect method call
> on $*ARGS?
Who cares? ;-)
> > The thing I worry about is this: I don't think actions should be
> > declared using "is", necessarily.
> >
> >$STDERR is fl
Ok, this is basically a bunch of "me too!"s.
On Tue, 15 May 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Awesome. Simple, Perlish, easy to read, etc. Also, I see you took the
> suggestion of:
>
>Access through... Perl 5 Perl 6
>= == ==
>Array
At 15.02 -0700 01-05-15, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>The only worry/problem/etc that I wonder about is the potential overuse
>of the "is" keyword. It is a very nice syntactic tool, but when I see
>something like this:
>
>$*ARGS is chomped;
>
>I wonder if that wouldn't be better phrased as:
>
>aut
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> The only worry/problem/etc that I wonder about is the potential overuse
> of the "is" keyword. It is a very nice syntactic tool, but when I see
> something like this:
>
>$*ARGS is chomped;
>
> I wonder if that wouldn't be better
So, I finally got around to reading the link Nat sent out:
http://www.perl.com/pub/2001/05/08/exegesis2.html
First off, nice job Damian (as always), it looks excellent. I like the
examples of stuff like this:
my int ($pre, $in, $post) is constant = (0..2);
Awesome. Simple, Perlish, easy
18 matches
Mail list logo
