Paul Hodges wrote:
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Consider this test in Perl:
if "\0" {...}
Its equivalent in C is this:
if ("") ...
That can't be right. If anything it's got the two languages
flipped, but that's still not quite right either. Apples and
o
On -1 xxx -1, it was written:
>
> I have a wish for Perl6. I think it would be nice to have the possibility
> for more than one modifier after a simple statement.
Larry's ruled that it's one statement modifier per statement, period. For
anything else you'd need to modify the grammar. (Which won
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:16:11PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> But anyway, if you still want to be old school about it, then you'll end
> up not caring about the scope of your $i. Really you won't. And you'll
> be happy that it was kept around for you once you decide you want to
> know the val
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That all has to be looked at anyway. What does "5" mean when you
> pass it to substr, anyway?
I was just going to ask about substrings, and then didn't because I
figured that had been hashed out already and I'd missed it...
> (I've been trying to make
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
: You could coin the abbreviation ligs, for Language Independent
: Graphemes. Then some ingenious rascal can create a pragma or whatever
: that allows $str.b, $str.c, $str.g, and $str.l for fans of terseness.
Except they'd
"Jonadab The Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It would be possible to have right-associative operators (that bind at
> least more tightly than comma and possibly very tightly) and convert a
> number to one of these objects, so that we can do stuff like th
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Jonadab the Unsightly One wrote:
> : You could coin the abbreviation ligs, for Language Independent
> : Graphemes. Then some ingenious rascal can create a pragma or whatever
> : that allows $str.b, $str.c, $str.g,
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> > AFAIR, I've seen in some Apocalypse that lexical scope boundaries will be
> > the same as boundaries of block, in which lexical variable was defined.
>
> Yep. Except in the case of routine parameters, but that's nothing new.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:10:03AM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> > > AFAIR, I've seen in some Apocalypse that lexical scope boundaries will be
> > > the same as boundaries of block, in which lexical variable was defined.
>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object
>> forest, like Inform has, where irrespective of class any given
>> object can have up to one parent at any given time,
>
> Multiple parent classes, yes.
Not remotely the same thing.
> Pa
Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
> > substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
> substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
substr($string, 2 but graphemes, 4 but bytes);
I think "but" even makes sense, if substr defaults to something.
Juerd
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
> Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
> > > substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
> > substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
>
> substr($string, 2 but graphemes, 4 but bytes);
>
> I think "but" even makes sense, if substr defaults to something.
I think
--- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
>
> > Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
> > > > substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
> > > substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
> >
> > substr($string, 2 but graphemes, 4 but bytes);
> >
> > I think "but
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Austin Hastings wrote:
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Juerd wrote:
> >
> > > Dave Whipp skribis 2004-06-28 9:55 (-0700):
> > > > > substr($string, 2 bytes, 4 bytes) = $substitute;
> > > > substr($string, 2, 4 :bytes)
> > >
> > > substr(
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > (I've been trying to make it assume some implicit unit based on the
> > current lexical scope's Unicode level, but issues remain.) We have
> > magical string positions that have different numer
--- Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> Speaking of objects... are we going to have a built-in object
> >> forest, like Inform has, where irrespective of class any given
> >> object can have up to one parent at any given time,
> >
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:42:47 -0700, David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:16:11PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
But anyway, if you still want to be old school about it, then you'll end
up not caring about the scope of your $i. Really you won't. And you'll
be happy that
Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> of course, I just mutter.. new C is very good, and in special
> cases, when simple incrementing-decrementing isn't what I want, I can
> write my own iterator (btw, in which apocalypse I can find how to
> write iterators in perl6?) with my own custom very special incr
Austin Hastings writes:
> Of course, how hard can it be to implement the .parent property?
>
> You'll want it on just about everything, though, so the change will
> probably be to CORE::MetaClass. It still shouldn't be that hard to do.
> Maybe Luke Palmer will post a solution... :-)
use Class
Luke Palmer writes:
> Alexey Trofimenko writes:
> > of course, I just mutter.. new C is very good, and in special
> > cases, when simple incrementing-decrementing isn't what I want, I can
> > write my own iterator (btw, in which apocalypse I can find how to
> > write iterators in perl6?) with m
20 matches
Mail list logo
