this has been discussed before, or even in the design
documents. I'm also sorry if this is too rambling for the list. It's not
that important, just a thought.
Cheers,
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
see.
I still do want to match against constants in the signature, however:
sub foo ( 0 ){ ... }
sub foo ( $bar ) { ... }
So I'm very confused about my opinion on the issue of pattern matching..
> Larry
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. :)
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
t,
but it's an idea.
> Juerd
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tting and whitespace trimming. (Specific
> proposals to p6l please.))
Shouldn't these be just methods?
> Larry
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
sure how to reconcile this.
Does [EMAIL PROTECTED] DWIM, by the way? I'm not sure about the precedence.
> Maybe there's a pragma that lets you control how much coercion
> happens.
use coercion :oppressively; # They're adverbs, after all!
> Larry
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
uld be a method on coderefs
or blocks. Is there a difference between the two? I always hated this
about Ruby; there seems to be no practical value to the separation.
Also, are blocks/coderefs/scopes continuations? Should .eval be a method
in Continuation?
Thanks,
--
wolverian
signature.
't if they
are possible, but about what blocks, coderefs and scopes are.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I probably should have spent more time
writing the post. :)
> --Dks
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
(or some other way to do that).
> -Melvin
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
eses on every method and sub call. Then a
reference to the method/sub would be simply its name without the parens.
I hope I never have to design my own language. I would be schizophrenic
before the day ends.
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
fine with that, as that's just one method of capturing the calling
continuation.
> Larry
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
The .foo syntax is very special, after all, so you can't really be
consistent with it. I prefer it be the topic, in any case.
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
make (1)[0] die horribly.
(1)[0] means 1[0], which is probably undefined, so it dies. That could
be detected at compile time. (my $foo = 1)[0] means $foo[0], which would
die at runtime, unless there's type inference going on. In any case, I
don't see a List in ()[] without a list-creating exp
I believe you are thinking in Perl 5. :) In Perl 6, &foo is a reference
to the function foo, and never a call. That makes it symmetric with the
other $.foo notations.
> Matt
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
you to change the first time you get
> the chance.
I'd like a login, username wolverian. Thanks!
> Please let me know which software you want installed. If it's in Debian
> and doesn't conflict with other software, you can have it (but no X or
> openoffice, or the l
about 'sipuli'? That's what onion is called in Finnish. :)
Anyway, I do think the name should be English, to be as accessible as
possible. 'Feather' is nice, and reminds me of Pugs's origins. On the
other hand, maybe 'falcon' (as terribly cliched as it is)
ng is
different.
(Finnish in general has some _very_ old forms of words that have
degenerated ages ago in other languages.)
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:44:43PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> But I like the newly suggested "feather" better, as it can relate to
> pugs AND parrot.
Feather is best one thus far, I think. I like carrot too; it's more
playful. I equate Pugs with fun a lot.
--
wolverian
sign
erator with side effects. (I'm strange like that.)
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
cs
> (hey, i think i said that correctly! :). = is still fine for basic
> assignment and everyone will understand it immediately.
I thought the op is visually so obvious it wouldn't need any
explanation, even for newbies.
Too bad what I _think_ is often not what actually _is_.
--
wolver
eally_ like the explicit 'method' name that methods have. Calling
them subs doesn't make sense to me.
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
tics, of
course. :)
Any thoughts/decisions?
--
wolverian
pgpjdFXn6ex1J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:18:40PM +0300, wolverian wrote:
> I'm a pretty high level guy, so I don't know about the performance
> implications of that. Maybe we want to keep seek() low level, anyway.
Sorry about replying to myself, but I want to ask a further question on
th
r so?
Now I'm tempted to make it a generic infix .new.
(args)`Class;
It's almost as confusing as SML!
--
wolverian
pgpjlZIJ8VhS2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- if
there should be an .elems method, leave it at returning an Int at all
times. @foo.elems returning the elements in @foo makes no sense.
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Sep 25, 2005 at 12:52:08PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Hackers on this list, what do you think?
I think separating the two is extremely confusing. I do not see any uses
for it, but maybe I am not thinking hard enough.
--
wolverian
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 08:25:15AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Of course, there's never been any controversy here about what to call
> "self", oh no... :-)
IMHO just call it "self" (by default) and be done with it. :)
--
wolverian, contributing to the general disagreement
27 matches
Mail list logo