> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
>
> For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> > > Does anyone else see a prob
> > For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> So do I, actually... it's sort of growing on me.
Me too. (I think it (~ for concat, ^ for negation) is just fine.)
The "clash" with =~ is disappointing though.
Now if Larry had the cahones to change the =~ operator...
(I find the notion of a short infix
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:49:21 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>> > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
>
>Does anyone else see a problem with "$negated=~$scalar;" ? :)
You forgot the space between the "=" and the "~". And yes, that is a bit
of a problem.
--
Bart.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
>> We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
>> of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
>> pointless.
> For what it's worth, I like i
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:49:21PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
>
> For
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> pointless.
For what it's worth, I like it.
> > Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
David L. Nicol wrote:
> "seal" has been suggested.
> ...
> As for read-only being an attribute, if attributes are compiler hints, how
> do we set something to be read-only then? And we can't unseal a r-o item
> without making a copy of it.
Pardon me, but why the fsck is so much time and energy
"Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> If I wanted to make a variable read-only, I would expect to do it
> by setting the read-only attribute on that variable, which I would
> further expect to do the same way I would set any other attribute at
> any other time. Orthogonality has its good points, even in Perl;
* Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06/14/2001 15:16]:
>
> OK, I've been teasing people about this for weeks, and it's time to stop.
> This is the current state of the Perl 6 emulator; it applies most things
> that Damian talked about in his keynote yesterday, and most of the things
> I've picked
