Gah. Not a good combination do heavy editing and insufficient
proofreading make.
* A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-22 03:55]:
> Good point; however, this means
a
> different way to think of the vector ops than we had so far.
> Basically, we're moving from the realm of vector ops to that
* Piers Cawley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-21 23:33]:
> And once you go to an image based IDE and have access to the
> bytecode of the code you're writing there's all *sorts* of
> interesting things you can do. And that's before one starts to
> imagine attaching the IDE/debugger to a running proce
* Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-21 20:35]:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:21:01PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > It seems to me that this is too big a semantic choice to make
> > merely by omission of a single (and quite dainty) character.
> > I'd rather express this by forcing a context on
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Perl6" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:51 PM
Subject: [perl] Re: Comma Operator
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> : Joe Gottman wrote:
> : >About a month ago, a
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:01:43PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
> Perhaps the right way to vectorize the arguments is to delimit them with
> vectorization markers?
>
> @a + >>$b<<
or @a + @$b even!
--
Justice is when you get what you deserve.
Law is when you get what you pay for.
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> LW> This would be relatively straightforward for syntax highlighters,
> LW> I think. But Perl 6 will throw other curves at highlighters that
> LW> will be much more difficult to solve, such as
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:33 PM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:21:01PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> : That said, I'm not sure how keen I am on
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> This would be relatively straightforward for syntax highlighters,
LW> I think. But Perl 6 will throw other curves at highlighters that
LW> will be much more difficult to solve, such as the fact that any
LW> C potentially changes the
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Joe Gottman wrote:
: >About a month ago, a thread here suggested that we change the meaning
: > of the comma operator. Currently, in scalar context the expression
: > foo(), bar()
: > means "evaluate foo(), discard the result
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:21:01PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
: That said, I'm not sure how keen I am on the idea of "one-sided"
: vector operators. It seems to me that this is too big a
: semantic choice to make merely by omission of a single (and quite
: dainty) character. I'd rather express this
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:06:13PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
: If only from a syntax-highlighting point of view, this is a horrible
: proposal. Make it die.
This would be relatively straightforward for syntax highlighters,
I think. But Perl 6 will throw other curves at highlighters that
will
* Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-01-21 01:44]:
> Note that if we do take this approach, we'll have to require the
> space after = in
>
> @list = «a b c d e»;
This shouldn't be a problem. The whitespace rule changes I
believe should be avoided (Abigail does have a point there) is if
whit
Warning: spacey, tangential semi-argument ahead.
Larry Wall writes:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:54:33AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : A thought occurred to me. What should this return:
> :
> : [1,2,3] Â+Â [4,5,6]
> :
> : At first glance, one might say [5,7,9]. But is that really the best
13 matches
Mail list logo
