"Non-yet-thrown exceptions must be a useful concept."
This is a bullet point from a list in Apo4 introducing
coverage of exception handling. Was Larry talking
about an exception object that hasn't yet been thrown?
Did he refer to this issue again anywhere else in the Apo?
--me
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002 17:34:12 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>Should we be allowed to use _ to group numbers, now that _ is concat?
>If not _, then what? (if anything?)
I don't really understand your question. Currently, "." is used for
concat and that doesn't inhibit using it in a number, does it? O
> "Larry" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Larry> @result = for @a; @b -> $a, $b { $a op $b }
Larry> (presuming we make C actually act like C).
Why not just make map do that?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ht
> Larry> @result = for @a; @b -> $a, $b { $a op $b }
>
> Larry> (presuming we make C actually act like C).
>
> Why not just make map do that?
The order of C's arguments is wrong. To make the -> extraction
syntax work we need the data being iterated to be on the left and the
processor block
A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
$foo{bar}
actually should be written
%foo{"bar"}
?
I'm vaguely hoping that the answer is yes, because then we could treat
*all* instances of {...} as a block returning either a closure, a value
for subscripting, or an ano
At 05:01 PM 1/26/02 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>A4 said that there were no barewords in Perl 6. Does this mean that
> $foo{bar}
>actually should be written
> %foo{"bar"}
>?
No. That's not a bareword.
>I'm vaguely hoping that the answer is yes, because then we could treat
>*all* instance
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 09:28:18AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> >%foo{"bar"}
It's bare, and it's a word.
I presume you're also happy with these ambiguities:
$foo{shift} vs. $foo{"shift"}
$foo{bar} vs. sub bar() { ... } $foo{bar}
vs. $foo{+bar}
vs. $foo{b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Jonathan Scott Duff) wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:57:25AM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 15:43:07 -0500, Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > >What we're cleaning up is the ickiness of having things declared
> > outside
> > >t
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 12:50:51PM -0800, Erik Steven Harrison wrote:
> >>Besides no one has commented on Steve Fink's (I think it was him) idea
> >>to store the result of the most recently executed conditional in $?. I
> >>kinda like that idea myself. It makes mnemonic sense.
>
> H . . . I c
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:03:55PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Do they need to? In the simple case, the hyperoperator provides list
> context to its arguments, but just calls the scalar operation repeatedly
> to fake up the list operation. Any operator
>
> @result = @a ^op @b
>
> is really
At 05:43 PM 1/26/02 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 09:28:18AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > >%foo{"bar"}
>
>It's bare, and it's a word.
Maybe you want to come up with another term to describe it then... but it
isn't a "bareword" in Perl. Camel III p.64 footnote: "... It
>Maybe there will be a Perl 6 rule forcing the keys to be quoted, but it
>won't be because of the "no barewords" rule. If there were such a rule, I
>presume you'd also apply it to the LHS of =>?
There is another way to resolve the ambiguity of foo meaning either
"foo" or foo() depending on curre
Damian Conway writes:
: > Larry> @result = for @a; @b -> $a, $b { $a op $b }
: >
: > Larry> (presuming we make C actually act like C).
: >
: > Why not just make map do that?
:
: The order of C's arguments is wrong. To make the -> extraction
: syntax work we need the data being iterated to b
Larry pondered:
> Perhaps we shouldn't be using ; for this.
That has occurred to me on several occasions but, checking my pockets, I
find I'm fresh out of spare symbols to replace it with.
We could always use colon, of course ;-)
Damian
Me writes:
: "Non-yet-thrown exceptions must be a useful concept."
:
: This is a bullet point from a list in Apo4 introducing
: coverage of exception handling. Was Larry talking
: about an exception object that hasn't yet been thrown?
: Did he refer to this issue again anywhere else in the Apo?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Larry pondered:
:
: > Perhaps we shouldn't be using ; for this.
:
: That has occurred to me on several occasions but, checking my pockets, I
: find I'm fresh out of spare symbols to replace it with.
:
: We could always use colon, of course ;-)
Well, more likely than
On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 04:52:53PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> @result = map -> $a; $b { $a op $b } @a; @b;
Something seems wrong with this, but I can't quite put my finger
on what it is. I think it's the -> directly after map - -> looks
too much like an operator. And even if you read "->" as
Simon wrote:
> Given hyperoperators, I wonder if we can actually drop map.
So:
@result = map { block } @data;
becomes:
@result = {block}^.(@data);
Hmmm.
Damian
> On the other hand, semicolon works out really nicely within brackets
> for multidimensional slices, and the mathematicians like it. And I
> don't know how the :: would fit in with other adverbial generalities.
Yes, I think semicolon is the correct solution.
We just have to explain that it's o
19 matches
Mail list logo
