Re: Apoc2 - concerns ::::: new mascot?

2001-05-09 Thread John L. Allen
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Simon Cozens wrote: > Beginning Perl was going to use a blown-up microscope slide of a grain > of sand - the beginnings of a pearl. Of course, nobody would have got > it, so we went with a cat instead, which is even more oblique. Hmmm, I suppose a blown-up grain of sand cou

Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading)

2001-04-24 Thread John L. Allen
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 12:32:29PM -0400, John L. Allen wrote: > > I think someone may have mentioned this already, but why not just say > > that if you want '.' to mean concatenation, you have to surround it on > &g

Re: Strings vs Numbers (Re: Tying & Overloading)

2001-04-24 Thread John L. Allen
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Graham Barr wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:19:22PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > > > At the moment I'm leaning toward ^ for concat, and ~ for xor. That > > I think that would lead to confusion too. In many languages ^ is > xor and ~ is a bitwise invert. It is that way i

Re: RFC 229 (v2) Variable interpolation on demand.

2000-09-29 Thread John L. Allen
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000, Robert Mathews wrote: > "John L. Allen" wrote: > > Um, what would your proposal gain you over > > > > $z = eval "qq{$y}"; > > > > other than conciseness, elegance and speed (which may be quite enough!) ? > &

Re: RFC 229 (v2) Variable interpolation on demand.

2000-09-29 Thread John L. Allen
On 29 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > Make Perl's powerful string interpolation facilities are available to > variables, in addition to literals. > > =head1 DESCRIPTION > > Given: > > $foo = 'def'; > $bar = 'ghi'; > $x = "abc$foo$bar"; > $y = 'abc$foo$bar'; > > There is no way to tu

Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X

2000-09-26 Thread John L. Allen
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote: > I think perhaps that Uri was suggesting more a common letter prefix, > such as: > > freadable($file); > fwritable($file); > fexecutable($file); > > Than a piece of bastardized Pythonesque syntax. ;-) Was that what the foo.bar("baz") syntax was

Re: RFC 320 (v1) Allow grouping of -X file tests and add C builtin

2000-09-26 Thread John L. Allen
On 26 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > =head1 TITLE > > Allow grouping of -X file tests and add C builtin Nice summary. Thanks. > =head1 IMPLEMENTATION > > This would involve making C<-[a-zA-Z]+> a special token in all contexts, > serving as a shortcut for the C builtin. > > =head1

Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X

2000-09-25 Thread John L. Allen
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > perl -e 'print -rwx $_' > > Can't call method "rwx" on an undefined value at -e line 1. > > Yeah, but read the error - Perl's parsing that as: > > [nwiger@matrix:~]$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'print -rwx $_'; > print -$_->rwx; > -e syntax

Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X

2000-09-25 Thread John L. Allen
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > I'd even go so far as to say that the current -X syntax should be > > _extended_, to allow for multiple tests at once, maybe by way of a > > leading caret (mnemonic "all"): > > > > -^rwx; # $_ is readable, writable and executable > > > >

Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X

2000-09-25 Thread John L. Allen
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Clayton Scott wrote: > It: > + stacks multiple tests quite cleanly without excess verbiage >(if (-e && -T && -s && -x){...} gets a little tedious especially >if you don't use $_) > + introduces only 1 new keyword ("file" seems bad, but maybe not) > + does not bre