Whilst I don't wish to get Medieval on your collective donkey I must
say that I'm really not sure of the utility of the proposed infix
superposition ops. I'm a big fan of any/all/one/none, I just think
that
one(any($a, $b, $c), all($d, $e, $f))
Is a good deal more intention revealing than the
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We could make "return" a method as well as a built-in sub. That gives us
>
> Loop.return($x)
> Sub.return($x)
> Topic.return($x)
> Thread.return($x)
> Block.return($x)
> There.return($x)
>
> or
>
> return Loop: $x
> return Su
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:58:57PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
> gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C<$val.eigenstates>
> or maybe just C<$val.states>. The method would work on non-superimposed
> values as well, in which c
Scott Duff asked:
How do we get at the eigenstates of a superposition?
We obviously need another operator!
Actually, I think we need a universal method on scalars that
gives the eigenstates of that value. It might be C<$val.eigenstates>
or maybe just C<$val.states>. The method would work on
Larry Wall wrote:
By all accounts, a s/// is an odd thing to put in a smart match
anyway. You can't have a superposition of things with side effects,
for instance:
$str =~ s/a/b/ | s/b/c/
Though doubtless Damian can think of something indeterminate to make
it mean. :-)
Of course. That j
Larry Wall:
# I have historically preferred that approach. Certainly it's
# something that could be enforced by a policy file too. An
# intro to programming class is likely to have such a policy
# file anyway:
#
# $ perl6
# use CS_101;
# if $a | $b {
# Prof. Roberts says you a
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, David Dyck wrote:
: I admit that I use pack, bitwise operators, as well as 0x constants
: in many of my scripts. I'm not sure what Angel means by taking
: some of these things out of the core, but if my short perl5 scripts
: start to grow to python length I'll have less incent
On 29 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: > On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: > : why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
: > :
: > : if $foo -> {
: > : ...
: > : return if $bar;
: > : ...
: > : }
: >
: > Except that by the c
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 at 14:50 -0800, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
> : Could we please, please, please have bitwise operators be out of the
> : core. We expect that they are not going to be used by the average
> : user, so it looks fair to apply the
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123- hex[also h:123?]
256:192.168.1.0 - base 256
(...etc...)
Could this be used to do explicit
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
> : why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
> :
> : if $foo -> {
> : ...
> : return if $bar;
> : ...
> : }
>
> Except that by the current rule you can only C from something
> that is declared w
> And that's also why we need a different way of returning from the
> innermost block (or any labelled block). "last" almost works, except
> it's specific to loops, at least in Perl 5 semantics. I keep thinking
> of "ret" as a little "return", but that's mostly a placeholder in
> my mind. I've g
Didn't I see an operator list a while back that featured sign-extending
shift?
If not, I apologize.
But on the other hand, we could make a ~>>> operator that was a
"case-preserving indent" :-)
=Austin
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : B
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) writes:
> : On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Well, I don't believe in "none" since it's really easy to say !any()
> :
> : Does that have any implications for "unless"?
>
> No. "unless" reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the presence of the >>> operator
Er, *what* >>> operator?
: (and speaking of low-frequency operators, what about bitwise rotation?
: Will that be the (( and )) operators?)
I think those will be rejected by anyone who uses either vi or emacs.
Seri
At 12:37 AM +0200 10/29/02, Markus Laire wrote:
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
>> explicit radix specifications for integers:
>> 0123- decimal
>> 2:01
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:30:54PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> > > No. "unless" reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
> >
> > "nor"? M
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Angel Faus wrote:
: Could we please, please, please have bitwise operators be out of the
: core. We expect that they are not going to be used by the average
: user, so it looks fair to apply the ultimate negative huffman
: enconding: they need to be specially required.
:
:
I think that endian issues are abstracted from literals. The place it's
going to be an issue is the specifiers for pack/unpack or whatever
replaces them.
But the presence of the >>> operator (and speaking of low-frequency
operators, what about bitwise rotation? Will that be the (( and ))
operators
> What about specifying endiannes also, or would that be too low-level
> to even consider? Currently I don't have any examples for where it
> might even be used...
Literals are the wrong place to put that; they represent values, not
storage. Endianness should generally not be visible at the lan
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
> >On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> >> explicit radix specifications for integers:
> >> 0123- decimal
> >> 2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
>
At 2:21 PM -0800 10/28/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
While we're at it, maybe we can add in 0rMCM to allow roman numerals too...
OK, see, the sad thing is that I really have no idea whether you're
joking or not. That's how wiggy this thread has gotten.
I am joking--it's defi
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex "123". I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now.
That x:123 part was my placeholder -- my bad, I forgot th
On 2002-10-28 at 16:54:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >The post that started this thread was a complaint about
> >leading 0 meaning octal - which is counterintuitive to everyone the
> >first time they come across it in C or Perl or Java or wherever.
>
> That's not entirely true. Granted the set of the
0x14 is questionably defined.
0X14 currently is an expression whose value is 14.
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex "123". I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now. (Is it a negative hexadecimal number, or
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:44, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
> > [The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
> > > explicit radix specifications for integers:
> > > 0123- decimal
> > >2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
> > >
At 4:44 PM -0500 10/28/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
> explicit radix specifications for integers:
> 0123- decimal
>2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
>8:123
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
> [The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
> > explicit radix specifications for integers:
> > 0123- decimal
> >2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
> >8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
> >16:123
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123
> And maybe:
>
> A bitwise operator is just a logic operator scoped to a set of
> bits.
>
> That's why I can't accept a characterization of
>
> +&+|+X - bitwise operations on int
> +&= +|= +X=
>
> ~&~|~X - bitwise operations on str
>
If you guys start trying to reserve punctuation for XNOR, the next perl
cruise is going to be through the Bermuda Triangle...
=Austin
--- Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:0
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> explicit radix specifications for integers:
> 0123- decimal
>2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
>8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
>16:123- hex[also h:123?]
>256:192.168
$accumulator += +X10;
Looks like hex arithmetic.
=Austin
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Okay, take 4, with 'X' meaning xor, so you can see it in context. I
> warn ya, I'm gonna keep doing this until there's a "Final" version,
> for
> some value of "Final". ;-) Again, I
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 01:19:05PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
> > No. "unless" reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
>
> "nor"? Maybe it's "$a nor $b"?
oh no! You've said "nor", so now I have have to ask abou
Okay, take 4, with 'X' meaning xor, so you can see it in context. I
warn ya, I'm gonna keep doing this until there's a "Final" version, for
some value of "Final". ;-) Again, I'm wondering if we're going about
this wrong way -- perhaps we need to go to more effort to save ^ as
xor, and use s
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:09 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
No. "unless" reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
"nor"? Maybe it's "$a nor $b"?
MikeL
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Paul Johnson wrote:
: On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
:
: > Well, I don't believe in "none" since it's really easy to say !any()
:
: Does that have any implications for "unless"?
No. "unless" reads well in English. How do your read $a ! $b ! $c?
Sorry, forgot to hit reply-all.
--- Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:58:16 -0800 (PST)
> From: Austin Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: labeled if blocks
> To: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mo
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Well, I don't believe in "none" since it's really easy to say !any()
Does that have any implications for "unless"?
--
Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pjcj.net
Larry Wall:
# and then I looked crosseyed at the // vs \\ proposals, and I
# realized we have a superposition of / and \ that is spelled "X". :-)
use Perl::Caseless;
print "foo" x 6;#?!?
--Brent Dax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@roles=map {"Parrot $_"} qw(embedding regexen Config
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:55:24AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Well, I don't believe in "none" since it's really easy to say !any(), but
> exclusive-or can certainly use the punctuation. Or, actually, I'm currently
> thinking, non-punctuation. I kept thinking to myself that it's a shame
> that x
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
: > Does xor really need the punctuation? Does xor really need to be a
: > primitive?
:
: Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
: likely to be more
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: How about "leave"?
Right, that brings back some memories.
: leave
: | []
: [ [result] ];
:
: Aliases:
: =
: return -> "leave sub"
Right.
: exit -> "leave program" (or is it "thread"?)
Hmm. Dunno. I'll assume thread for now
Larry Wall:
# "last" almost works, except it's specific
# to loops, at least in Perl 5 semantics. I keep thinking of
# "ret" as a little "return", but that's mostly a placeholder
# in my mind. I've got a lot of those...
I don't see why C has to work only on loops, or why there can't be
an alt
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 10:11:43AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
> likely to be more frequent: the 'superpositional' flavor, for example,
> is likely to have significant meaning. Same with 'none', I expect.
>
> & |
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 09:58 AM, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
Does xor really need the punctuation? Does xor really need to be a
primitive?
Though bitwise xor is seldom used for most people, other versions are
likely to be more frequent: the 'superpositional' flavor, for example,
is
From: Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"last" almost works, except it's specific to loops
But last also works for anonymous blocks, which aren't loops. (Aren't they?
Don't know about you tovarisch, but my anonymous blocks execute just once.)
In fact, that's why I asked. I have a lot of code that
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 09:41:37AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes:
>
> I mislike \ for xor, primarily because it doesn't fit into the current
> "escape" mystique of \.
Does xor really need the punc
Since xor is really low frequency, why not make "xor" mean xor?
$zero = $a xor $a;
$a xor= $b;
$b xor= $a xor= $b xor= $a; # Swap'em
@a ^xor= @b; # Is this right?
=Austin
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : If \ meant xor, and some of the
How about "leave"?
leave
| []
[ [result] ];
Aliases:
=
return -> "leave sub"
exit -> "leave program" (or is it "thread"?)
break -> "leave loop" (this is shaky: does it deserve to be here?)
last -> "leave block"
Extensions (these are WAY! optional):
=
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: If \ meant xor, and some of the other discussed changes:
I mislike \ for xor, primarily because it doesn't fit into the current
"escape" mystique of \.
Larry
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Damian Conway wrote:
: : > or
: : >
: : > given ( "/home/temp/", $f )
: : > -> ( str $x , int $n ) {
: : > $x ~ ["one, "two", ... , "hundreed"][$n]
: : > };
: : >
: : > it seems that the last does not work beca
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: > > Larry wrote:
: > > > If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada
: > > > route of specifying the radix explicitly:
: Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place
On 27 Oct 2002, Marco Baringer wrote:
: why not use -> to create a sub which you can return from?
:
: if $foo -> {
: ...
: return if $bar;
: ...
: }
Except that by the current rule you can only C from something
that is declared with the word "sub". ->{...} is still just a fancy
block from
On Sunday, October 27, 2002, at 12:57 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
.&= .|= .\= <<= >>= - (depending on operants)
s/operants/operands/
Sorry bout that. Typing too fast.
MikeL
55 matches
Mail list logo
