On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 02:45:39AM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Explain how having indexes (arrays, substr, etc...) in Perl 6 start at 0
> will benefit most users. Do not invoke legacy. [1]
Answer 1: Ignoring legacy, it won't.
Answer 2: Because C uses 0-based indexes, Parrot is written in C
On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 02:27 PM, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> unless my $fh = $x.open {
> die "Cannot open $x: $!";
> } else while $fh.getline -> $_ {
> print;
> } else {
> die "No lines to read in $x";
> }
I think you need a bet
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 06:00:21PM -0500, Melvin Smith wrote:
> >final and private are completely different concepts as I understand
> >them.
>
> I wouldn't say "completely different". They are both used for "enforcement"
> of similar means, but you are correct, they are different.
I view "final
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:07:03PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Well, there's the Perl 5 reference counting solution. In normal cases
> DESTROY is called as soon as it can be. Of course we're all anxious to
> get into the leaky GC boat with Java and C# because we've heard it's
> faster. I wonder
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 05:23:46PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> The only good justification I've heard for "final" is as a directive
> for optimization. If you declare a variable to be of a final type, then
> the compiler (JIT, or whatever) can resolve method dispatch at
> compile-time. If it is no
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:13:25AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> As the pendulum swings in the other direction you get mind-bogglingly
> silly things like finalize which I just learned of today.
What's so silly about finalize? It's pretty much identical to Perl's
DESTROY. (Except that Java'
On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:59:51PM -0700, David Whipp wrote:
> Its not quite the same thing, but Java does have the concept of
> anonymous classes (it names them 'inner' classes): Is Perl6 going
> to have a similar concept?
Inner classes and anonymous classes are actually different in Java.
(Anon
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 11:14:29PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> my $meth = "foo";
> $obj->$meth(); # $obj->foo();
>
> I'm probably using the wrong terms.
>
> This definately can't work if $obj is of a class which is strongly
> typed.
You would do that in Java by using reflection.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:46:48PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> And I'm tired of hearing the argument that Perl programmers can't get
> used to a different operator for concatenation. I know better--after
> all, Perl is probably what got them used to . in the first place. If
> you can teach dogs t
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 06:19:40PM +, Fred Heutte wrote:
> Yes, I know ~ is the bitwise negation operator. Have you EVER used it?
Today, in fact:
fcntl($fh, F_SETFL, $flags & ~O_NONBLOCK) or die "fcntl: $!";
- Damien
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:31:18AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> There are many people who would prefer . to ->, if for no other reason
> than it's cleaner looking and is one less character to type. The fact
> that it's become the industry standard for method call syntax is also
> a point in its fav
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 03:15:22AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
> >support for tables and lists.
>
> We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
> written in pod.
What kinds of things got added for the c
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 03:42:49PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:58:37PM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> > What? I don't think people should be writing either XML or HTML
> > as the source documentation format. I said that, quite clearly.
>
> T
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 01:24:37PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >XML is intrinsically no more or less difficult to write than HTML.
>
> Wrong.
I beg your pardon?
> >Comparing XML to HTML is pointless, however; they are not the same
> >thing.
>
> Wrong. And you only say that because you
On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 09:21:51AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Indeed, this is the key problem with human use of XML. HTML was originally
> simple enough to be human writable, its later, more powerful incarnations
> start losing that (but you can always use a subset for simple things, and
> X
On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 03:39:51PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> I think POD's list handling is full of warts, but what follows
> is much better than HTML/DocBook itemized lists:
For me, they're about the same.
Actually, I'd rather read an XHTML/HTML itemized list than a POD one;
they both look ug
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 07:24:38PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > $foo = """Things like ', ", and \ have no special meaning in here.""";
>
> Argh! *NO*! That way lies madness, or at least DCL's quoting mania. My
> record, in a command procedure that wrote other command procedures that
> submi
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 09:20:23PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Single quotes don't interpolate \' and \\
I rather like the Python triple-quote mechanism used for this
purpose:
$foo = """Things like ', ", and \ have no special meaning in here.""";
Of course, this doesn't help if you wa
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> In Perl, this is the null character: "\0"
...
> It's a shame you don't like it, but this is the way we speak.
Well, it's the way you speak. Myself, I'd call that the NUL
character. :>
- Damien, exercising a pet pe
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:21:52PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> No offense to Damian, but I tried to read and understand his documentation
> and I thought I was back in grad school. I don't think it's the fault of
> the writing either; I think that Quantum::Superpositions is trying to do
> someth
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 11:58:08AM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote:
> > I think that this is better done as a special overloaded object used
> > by database modules which wish to implement SQL-style tri-state logic.
>
> It could be done as an overloaded object. You'd have to be able to overload all
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Add null() keyword and fundamental data type
I think that this is better done as a special overloaded object used
by database modules which wish to implement SQL-style tri-state logic.
Given that making overloaded objects fast
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 08:14:24PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >Following Glenn's lead, I'm in the process of RFC'ing a new null()
> >keyword and value
>
> As though one were not already drowning in a surfeit of subtly
> dissimilar false values.
Hear, hear.
Three-valued logic is enough.
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 09:45:54AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
> I would propose that the C operation should short-circuit if the
> block throws an exception, with the value of the expection determining
> whether the final invocation of the block should accept the element it
> was filtering:
I do
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:10:44PM -0700, Steve Fink wrote:
> My proposal would be what I implemented for perl5 a while back (Sarathy
> didn't dislike it, but wasn't convinced enough to put it in): all
> dereferencing can be done with ->.
>
> $x->@ is the same as @$x
> $x->% is the same as %$x
>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 01:19:22PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I recently suggested in p5p that for many system calls it could be
> checked in *consta...darn, *compile* time whether they are used in
> void contect, and _abort_. "No, I'm not going to let you get away
> with doing a chdir() a
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:36:25PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> My take: I like perl, I don't mind it the way it is. But I'd be happier if
> it was a lot more like python! (indentation aside)
Why, then, don't you just use Python?
I'm not being sarcastic. Python is a very good language. It h
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 09:04:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> And context dependency is bad for people.
Actually, people deal very well with context dependency.
"Have you paid Bill?"
"Have you paid that bill?"
"It looks like a duck's bill."
"The President vetoed the bill."
> A rose
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 05:34:51PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > You appear to arguing that expressions in function argument lists should
> > not be evaluated in a list context. Is this really what you mean?
>
> I guess I do. I guess I just hate contexts!
Context is a fundemental part of Pe
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:31:23PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Sorry, this is exactly the argument we get from the C/C++/Java heads,
> who find perl's lack of discrimination between strings and numbers so
> distasteful. But if we can gloss over the difference between a string
> and a number, we c
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 10:24:09AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> It was the response which was blithe, it just re-iterated arguments we
> are all completely familar with and did not address my point in the RFC.
Then perhaps we need to agree to disagree. I feel that a number of
people have addr
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:15:03PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> No, || is half-consistent at the moment: the left hand side is forced into
> scalar context but the result context propagates down the right hand
> side. I challenge anyone to come up with a rationalization for this that
> does not
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 10:26:13PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> I like the idea of adding the context-aware operators, but I don't
> think I'd use them as often as I use "the number of things in the
> array". I think most Perl programmers would be in the same camp.
> Unless you can show a co
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 11:46:04PM -0400, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Why is it silly? Hashes and arrays are *conceptually* very similar (even
> if they are extremely different implementation-wise). One of them has
> implicit key, the other has an explicit key. They both provide some sort
> of o
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:45:04PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> I hope people will actually read the RFC before coming back with these
> canned responses which I (and presumably everyone else on this list)
> am completely familiar with. I used to believe that too! Honest...
I think you do a si
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 06:41:52PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> I think I like plow() or maybe just weave()
weave() and ravel()?
- Damien
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:46:04AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> The RFC doesn't mention localtime() for just this reason. The idea would
> be localtime would be GONE in Perl 6, instead moved to Time::Local.
> date() would replace it.
Why is this a good idea? Perl programs have been using localti
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 04:39:24PM -0400, Spider Boardman wrote:
> The C (POSIX.1) remove() function is NOT just unlink() in drag.
Not everywhere, at least:
>REMOVE(3) FreeBSD Library Functions Manual REMOVE(3)
...
> The remove() function is an alias for the unlink(
38 matches
Mail list logo
