Jonathan Lang wrote:
Close. I'm thinking added functionality for semicolon alternatives
rather than the replace the semicolon stunt that Semi::Semicolons
pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between
prefix:? and postfix:?, I think that it would be quite useful for
postfix:?
On 5/15/07, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of Cgiven with no block
defined? I.e. is
given $foo { when 1 {...} };
equivalent to
given $foo;
when 1 {...};
Doubtful.
However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
the
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 11:59:35AM -0700, Dave Whipp wrote:
: Jonathan Lang wrote:
:
: Close. I'm thinking added functionality for semicolon alternatives
: rather than the replace the semicolon stunt that Semi::Semicolons
: pulls. In particular, as long as there's no ambiguity between
:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:14:44PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
However, I do think that it's useful to be able to treat the rest of
the current scope as a block (usually with a parameter), for certain
kinds of closure-heavy code.
Maybe this is a case for one of Mr. Lang's custom semicolons with
Larry Wall wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
: A slightly tangental thought: is the behavior of Cgiven with no block
: defined? I.e. is
It would be illegal syntax currently.
As I understand it, the proposal is to say that if the parser finds a
';' where it was expecting to find a control block, it
I don't want to argue about the design of perl6[1], I just wonder: why
the semicolon is still needed in the end of lines in perl6?
JavaScript allows to omit semicolumn. In lecture at Yahoo's YUI
Theatre one of JS's gurus talked about how it is organized in
JavaScript parser.
If the line of
Hi everyone,
I don't want to argue about the design of perl6[1], I just wonder: why
the semicolon is still needed in the end of lines in perl6?
I can think of different reasons (history, readability, easier parsing
of multiline statements, force people to write one-line functions to
avoid
JavaScript allows to omit semicolumn.
Sorry, s/lumn/lon/.
By the way, Perl also ignors semicolumn :-)
--
Andrew Shitov
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.shitov.ru
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 07:05:01PM +0200, gabriele renzi wrote:
: Hi everyone,
:
: I don't want to argue about the design of perl6[1], I just wonder: why
: the semicolon is still needed in the end of lines in perl6?
:
: I can think of different reasons (history, readability, easier parsing
:
On 5/14/07, Andrew Shitov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
JavaScript allows to omit semicolumn.
Speaking of JavaScript, any experienced JavaScript programmer will
tell you that while semi-colons are in fact optional, you should
always treat them as mandatory, to avoid subtle errors creeping into
your
Aankhen wrote:
Speaking of JavaScript, any experienced JavaScript programmer will
tell you that while semi-colons are in fact optional, you should
always treat them as mandatory, to avoid subtle errors creeping into
your code.
We should also note that the idea of omitting ';' is not as
gabriele renzi wrote:
Hi everyone,
I don't want to argue about the design of perl6, I just wonder: why
the semicolon is still needed in the end of lines in perl6?
It isn't - sometimes. S03 identifies a number of ways that an
expression can be terminated: the semicolon (';'), a block-final
Jonathan Lang wrote:
^[3]: If this were included in the core, you might even reverse things
so that ';' is defined in terms of postfix:. or infix:{'=='},
depending on the context; in this case, postfix:? would be defined
in terms of postfix:., rather than postfix:;. In fact, the only
thing
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:29:11PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
2. This brings up the possibility of custom-designed termination
operators.
cf. Semi::Semicolons. I think that being flexible enough that people can
write packages like that is one of Perl 6's greatest strengths.
Long may it
Andrew Shitov:
If the line of code is not ended with ';' the parser tries first
to assume [..]
Wouldn't that be unambigous?
foo = 23
bar = \
42
?
I think there would be no ambiguities and you only had to add additional
syntax for the rare cases instead of the common cases.
--
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:22:48AM +0200, Thomas Wittek wrote:
Andrew Shitov:
If the line of code is not ended with ';' the parser tries first
to assume [..]
Wouldn't that be unambigous?
foo = 23
bar = \
42
?
I think there would be no ambiguities and you only had to add
John Macdonald schrieb:
It's also, in many cases,
harder to edit - that's why a trailing comma in a list that
is surrounded by parens, or a trailing semicolon in a block
surrounded by braces, is easier to manage.
Now that the list is surrounded by parens makes clear that it ends with
the
On 5/14/07, Daniel Hulme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:29:11PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
2. This brings up the possibility of custom-designed termination
operators.
cf. Semi::Semicolons.
Close. I'm thinking added functionality for semicolon alternatives
rather than
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 02:02:06AM +0200, Thomas Wittek wrote:
John Macdonald schrieb:
It's also, in many cases,
harder to edit - that's why a trailing comma in a list that
is surrounded by parens, or a trailing semicolon in a block
surrounded by braces, is easier to manage.
Now that
19 matches
Mail list logo
