Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sick would be if <- were introduced to make the variable write-only ;)
Sicker still would be if - were introduced to make the variable
neither readable nor writeable. HTH.HAND.
--
$;=sub{$/};@;=map{my($a,$b)=($_,$;);$;=sub{$a.$b->()}}
split//,"[EMAIL PROTECT
Larry Wall skribis 2004-08-20 13:31 (-0700):
> Unfortunately I'm not sure it passes the "Are there already too many
> ways to declare a sub?" test...
I'm not seeing it as another way. Technically, of course it is
different, but by the user, <-> and -> will probably be seen as one
thing, with one o
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:07:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> : I'm proposing
> :
> : for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) <-> $foo, $bar, $xyzzy { ... }
> : for %quux.kv <-> $key, $value { ... }
>
> That'd probably work on the keys only if the hash was decla
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:49:46 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, a typo. Though it's not actually clear yet whether you have to
> write zips args with semicolons, which is why I partially switched
> to ¥ in midthink.
Just checking. I wondered if you'd introduced a new feature midt
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 04:46:33PM -0400, Matt Diephouse wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
: >
: > for zip @a ¥ @b <-> { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
:
: Shouldn't that be:
:
: fo
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:31:12 -0700, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's vaguely possible I could be persuaded on the basis that
>
> for zip @a ¥ @b <-> { ($^a,$^b) = ($^b,$^a) }
Shouldn't that be:
for zip @a, @b <-> { ... }
--or--
for @a ¥ @b <-> { ... }
?
--
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 10:07:02PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: I'm proposing
:
: for zip(@foos, @bars, @xyzzies) <-> $foo, $bar, $xyzzy { ... }
: for %quux.kv <-> $key, $value { ... }
That'd probably work on the keys only if the hash was declared to have
object keys. At least in Perl 5, the ke
