--- On Thu, 7/9/09, Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org wrote:
. . .
Somehow the current file test syntax, 'filename' ~~ :e, looks like a not
well-though-out translation of Perl 5's syntax, -e 'filename'.
Apart from totally feeling wrong to me,
Dunno about totally. I'm still trying to get a P6
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.dewrote:
* Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org [2009-07-10 00:25]:
stat($str, :e)# let multi dispatch handle it for us
This gets my vote.
Me too.
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
perlpi...@gmail.com
Em Qui, 2009-07-09 às 22:50 -0400, Buddha Buck escreveu:
Both the separate pathname type and the stat($str, :e) proposal
salvage the purity of Str, so either would be acceptable to your
argument.
The bigger problem of using a different type is that
/etc/passwd ~~ :e
Would dispatch to Str,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org wrote:
$str.File.e # same, different names
Brainstorming a bit here
Str is a class that describes collections of characters (among some other
typographical constructs, yadda, yadda, Unicode, yadda).
There is a
Sorry, I sent this just to Mark. Wasn't my intention.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com
Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re-thinking file test operations
To: Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Mark J. Reed
My reply to the message Aaron sent directly to me by mistake...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: Re-thinking file test operations
To: Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com
You replied just to me, you know
Hi,
Somehow the current file test syntax, 'filename' ~~ :e, looks like a not
well-though-out translation of Perl 5's syntax, -e 'filename'.
Apart from totally feeling wrong to me, there are a few points I can put
my finger on:
1) $file ~~ :s returns a number, although smartmatching usually
* Moritz Lenz mor...@faui2k3.org [2009-07-10 00:25]:
stat($str, :e)# let multi dispatch handle it for us
This gets my vote.
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
constructed from strings, maybe with an operator. Having those 29
single-letter methods on such a class would not bug me as much as
having them on Str.
On
Mark J. Reed wrote:
A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
constructed from strings, maybe with an operator. Having those 29
single-letter methods on such a class would not bug me as much as
having
On Jul 9, 2009, at 18:22 , Moritz Lenz wrote:
Somehow the current file test syntax, 'filename' ~~ :e, looks like a
not
well-though-out translation of Perl 5's syntax, -e 'filename'.
That would be because it is; originally the filetests were perl5-
style, but pugs refused to parse them
Resent to list as I intended to in the first place
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Darren Duncandar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
Buddha Buck wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Darren Duncandar...@darrenduncan.net wrote:
Mark J. Reed wrote:
A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
constructed from strings, maybe with an
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, Mark J. Reed wrote:
A few months ago (or maybe more) I proposed making pathnames their own
type, distinct from (or perhas a subclass of) strings, but easily
constructed from strings, maybe with an operator. Having those 29
single-letter methods on such a class would not bug
14 matches
Mail list logo