On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Larry Wall wrote:
It's possible the syntax for substitution should be wrapped around the syntax
for matching, whatever that turns out to be.
That strikes me as promising...
Going back to Perl5 for a moment, we have
substr($str,$start,$len) = $newstr
why not simply
On Wednesday 23 October 2002 17:58, Luke Palmer wrote:
From: Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
Do you think that Lisp macros make the language more powerful than
others (eg Perl)? I mean, do they really give a competitive
advantage, or are they being overrated (see
Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you define powerful as can do more things, then of course not.
Lisp is implemented in C, and C's macros are certainly not essential
[aside: most major common lisp implementations (cmucl, sbcl,
openmcl, mcl, allegro and lispworks) are all native
Speaking about macros, I renember reading somewhere something about
Scheme hygenic macros, but i didn't really understood it.
Do they solve the maintenance problems of Lisp macros? Would they be
applicable to perl?
Thanks for any tips,
-angel
Angel Faus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Speaking about macros, I renember reading somewhere something about
Scheme hygenic macros, but i didn't really understood it.
Do they solve the maintenance problems of Lisp macros? Would they be
applicable to perl?
Scheme hygenic macros do a lot of the
On 25 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: But think of what macros in general provide:
:
:* Multi-platform compatability
:* Easier maintenance
: * Creating/Embedding custom languages. aka - adapting the
:
Since it's been a full month since the start of the monster operator
precedence thread, here's what I've been able to gather as the
revised, new-and-improved list of Perl6 operators, IF we did all the
xor/cat/regex-related changes as discussed as of this moment. ;-) I
think this list is
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: Since it's been a full month since the start of the monster operator
: precedence thread, here's what I've been able to gather as the
: revised, new-and-improved list of Perl6 operators, IF we did all the
: xor/cat/regex-related changes as discussed
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
||!!//- boolean operations
= ||= !!= //=
and orxor
Hmmm, given Larry's comments just now about about similar things not
looking similar, I really think | vs ! is a mistake. From a
In the interest of email sanity, please make sure that neither Larry's
preferred : nor the more-common are valid at statement start...
I'd hate to stumble across
: - - like 'sub' ;
And run the risk of it compiling both as a quote and not.
=Austin
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 01:00 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
Not clear how many of these are just universal or near-universal
methods.
Which would make some of them list-op variants, if we follow Perl 5
rules...
What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
one-arg
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'kay. As an aside, I've always itched for a qlike op that was
matrix-like, e.g.
my Pet @list = qm{
fido dog collie
fluffy cat siamese
};
That should be qo, and possibly @qo or qoo -- it quotes an object.
On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 02:38 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
In the manner of Accent, I'd like reserved as the RPC operator.
The Role Playing Character operator? Hmm, that has possibilities.
What would this statement do?
+--+
|.|
|d.|
|..|
+--+
MikeL
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:00:59PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: binary operators:
: + -*/%** x~
: += -= *= /= %= **= x= ~= = =
We could distinguish an xx operator (along with xx=) that does
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: ? - force to bool context
: ! - force to bool context, negate
: + - force to numeric context
: - - force to numeric context, negate
: ~ - force to string context
We're obviously missing the force to string context,
Here's try #2. Things that are not true operators or have other
caveats are marked, where known. LMKA.
unary (prefix) operators:
\ - reference to
* - list flattening
? - force to bool context
! - force to bool context, negate
not - force to bool context, negate
Excellent (and valuble) work Michael. Thank-you.
My turn for a few comments:
| ! - superpositional
all any one (none?)
Although there certainly are good uses for a Cnone superpositional:
push list, $newval
if $newval eq none(list);
print In range\n
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 06:28:28PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: ? - force to bool context
: ! - force to bool context, negate
: + - force to numeric context
: - - force to numeric context, negate
: ~ - force to
Larry Wall:
# We're obviously missing the force to string context, negate
# operator. :-)
Which would create a superposition of all strings besides the given one,
right? (Oh crap, I think I gave Damian an idea... :^) )
--Brent Dax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@roles=map {Parrot $_} qw(embedding regexen
Brent Dax wrote:
Larry Wall:
# We're obviously missing the force to string context, negate
# operator. :-)
Which would create a superposition of all strings besides the given one,
right? (Oh crap, I think I gave Damian an idea... :^) )
The C~none operator covers that quite nicely:
$not_foo
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
: one-arg universal method?
The Perl 5 definition of named unary op is an operator with the
precedence of UNIOP in perly.c.
: E.g. why are temp and let both ops but
: my, our, hash
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: What's the Official Perl difference between a named unary op and a
: one-arg universal method?
I didn't give the other half of the answer. A method is a term,
not an operator. It's the . in front of it that's the operator...
It's just that, in
So many operators...
It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
too easy to read if we, for instance, used the Kanji
On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, Chris Dutton wrote:
: So many operators...
:
: It's now clear what we need. Unicode operators. That should buy us at
: least another week to hash out the rest of the necessary operators. ;-)
:
: It'd also silence the legions of critics who complain about Perl being
: too
24 matches
Mail list logo
