Hi all. I missed out on the original RFC process; it was over before
I even heard of perl6. Anyway, there's something I want to contribute to the
Perl community. I've had an idea about control structures which I've never
seen anywhere else, so I guess I'm the inventor :). I hope
Here's the next part to the Control Structures message I sent before.
The next part is to apply the same idea to loop. Please note that
this syntax conflicts with stuff already in Perl, but it's a bit clearer what
I mean when I do it this way; the question is, do we scrap my
Quoted from Seven Deadly Sins of Introductory Programming Language
Design [1] by Linda McIver and Damian Conway:
We have shown over one thousand novice programming students
the C/C++ expression:
the quick brown fox + jumps over the lazy dog
and asked them what they believe the
Andy Wardley wrote:
Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
and string concatenation ...
Isn't there some nifty Unicode operator perl6 could enlist? ;)
How about concatenating adjacent operands? ANSI C does this
with string constants and it works very well. It would
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 07:05:26AM +1100, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
--
given ($this) {
when $that_happens { Have a party }
when $that_doesnt_happen { Sing }
all {
# Do something
}
any {
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:05:26 +1100 (EST)
From: Timothy S. Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
Hi all. I missed out on the original RFC process; it was
Sorry for the one-month-old response, but this message fell between the
cracks and I was just reviewing all my old new mail
In a message dated Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Me writes:
Somebody fairly recently recommended some decent fixed-width
typefaces.
I think it may have been MJD, but I can't
Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:46:21 +1100 (EST)
From: Timothy S. Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
These are mostly not my ideas (except activate); hopefully
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:19:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
and string concatenation, depending on the type of the operand
on the left?
I realise the answer is probably not, given the number/string
ambiguity of Perl variables:
On Thu 14 Nov, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 12:19:47PM +, Andy Wardley wrote:
Can we overload + in Perl 6 to work as both numeric addition
and string concatenation, depending on the type of the operand
on the left?
There have been times when I have wondered if
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:10:07PM +, Richard Proctor wrote:
There have been times when I have wondered if string concatination could be
done without any operator at all. Simply the placement of two things
next to each other as in $foo $bar or $foo$bar would silently concatenate
them.
On 2002-11-14 at 16:47:15, Michael G Schwern wrote:
string concatenation operator - please stop
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language;perl.org/msg06710.html
BTW, the first link there - to the bikeshed story - is broken.
This is the correct link:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Before this starts up again, I hereby sentence all potential repliers to
first read:
string concatenation operator - please stop
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language;perl.org/msg06710.html
The bike shed thing is like Godwin's Law. Only I don't know
which side
At 5:57 PM -0500 11/14/02, Ken Fox wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Before this starts up again, I hereby sentence all potential repliers to
first read:
string concatenation operator - please stop
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language;perl.org/msg06710.html
The bike shed thing is like
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:dan;sidhe.org]
At 5:57 PM -0500 11/14/02, Ken Fox wrote:
Wasn't one of the main problems with Jarkko's juxtaposition
proposal that it would kill indirect objects? Have we chased
our tail on this subject after the colon became required for
indirect objects?
I
Luke Palmer asked:
When junctions collapse,
Sigh, not another one of those dreadful reality TV shows:
When animals attack
When drivers collide
When junctions collapse
Next we'll get:
When mailing lists explode
When threads perpetuate
When Piers summarize
When Larrys make puns
;-)
Micholas Clarke asked:
If a subroutine explicitly needs access to its invocant's topic, what is so
wrong with having an explicit read-write parameter in the argument list that
the caller of the subroutine is expected to put $_ in?
Absolutely nothing. And perfectly legal. You can even call that
17 matches
Mail list logo
