On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:02:37AM -0600, Thom Boyer wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> The .++ form is still not a method (single) dispatch, just an alternate
>> form of the postfix, which is a multi dispatch.
>
> But the postfix is a unary operator, right? So that'd be multi dispatch on
> one argum
Larry Wall wrote:
The .++ form is still not a method (single) dispatch, just an alternate
form of the postfix, which is a multi dispatch.
But the postfix is a unary operator, right? So that'd be multi dispatch
on one argument.
How does single dispatch differ from multi dispatch on a single
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 09:46:29AM -0400, Mark J. Reed wrote:
: Is it just me, or is all this talk about precedence and functions vs
: operators vs methods creating a niggling sensation in anyone else's
: head? It feels like we're in the vicinity of another one of them Big
: Simplifying Idea thing
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:08:43PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> TSa wrote:
>> Another good use of the dot forms is to get a single character
>> form to tighten precedence: $x**3! != $x**3.! == $x**(3!).
>
> BTW, is the dot form only available for postfix or for infix
> as well? I.e. 3 * 2 == 3.*(
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:01:27PM +0100, TSa wrote:
> HaloO,
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
>> I deem that to be an unlikely failure mode, however. So maybe .++
>> is just gone now, and you have to write \++ instead. Any objections?
>
> Please keep .++ as outlined below. Does the degenerate unspace not
>
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 07:32:23PM -0600, Thom Boyer wrote:
> Question: given
>
> ($x)++ # no whitespace, so postfix?
>
> is ++ postfix, or infix?
That is postfix. Any infix that could be confused with a postfix
requires intervening whitespace.
> Now, I think that
>
> $x.foo
>
> is
Is it just me, or is all this talk about precedence and functions vs
operators vs methods creating a niggling sensation in anyone else's
head? It feels like we're in the vicinity of another one of them Big
Simplifying Idea things. Unfortunately, I don't have the actual Big
Idea, so it could just
Jon Lang wrote:
Thom Boyer wrote:
That seems better to me than saying that there's no tab character in
say "blah $x\t blah"
Whoever said that?
Oops. I thought Larry did. But he didn't; I misread it. Whew.
Somehow I managed to read Larry's words and get exactly the *opposite*
meaning
HaloO,
Jon Lang wrote:
TSa wrote:
Note that I see ** more as a parametric postscript then a real binary.
That is $x**$y sort of means $x(**$y).
That's where we differ, then. I'm having trouble seeing the benefit
of that perspective, and I can clearly see a drawback to it - namely,
you have
HaloO,
TSa wrote:
Another good use of the dot forms is to get a single character
form to tighten precedence: $x**3! != $x**3.! == $x**(3!).
BTW, is the dot form only available for postfix or for infix
as well? I.e. 3 * 2 == 3.*(2)?
Regards, TSa.
--
The Angel of Geometry and the Devil of Alg
HaloO,
Larry Wall wrote:
I deem that to be an unlikely failure mode, however. So maybe .++
is just gone now, and you have to write \++ instead. Any objections?
Please keep .++ as outlined below. Does the degenerate unspace not
collide with &prefix:<\>? That is does foo\bar() not mean to capt
Thom Boyer wrote:
And does dot always do that? If it does, then something odd happens.
Consider infix:<*> and postfix:, where infix:<*> binds tighter than
postfix:<+>, and both bind more loosely than dot. Then
I meant "... tighter than postfix:, ..."
1 * 2! # means (1 * 2)!
1 *
Thom Boyer wrote:
Now, I think that
$x.foo
is a method call, even if there's a postfix: declaration in scope.
And that's a problem, because, no matter what precedence postfix:
was given,
1,2,3.foo
is still going to mean
1, 2, (3.foo)
instead of the desired
postfix:(1,2,3
13 matches
Mail list logo
