In summary:
1. I don't like ~ for concat
2. But if it does become concat, then we still
shouldn't
change ~'s current unary meaning
Thanks for listening.
-Nate
I agree completely. However, this is no longer really a
topic for -internals, it's really a purely language
At 05:17 AM 6/22/2001 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
In summary:
1. I don't like ~ for concat
2. But if it does become concat, then we still
shouldn't
change ~'s current unary meaning
Thanks for listening.
-Nate
I agree completely. However, this is no longer
From: Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:41 PM
Subject: ~ for concat / negation (Re: The Perl 6 Emulator)
Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ? Plus, it makes the
pre-plus-concat that many desire impossible, since
* Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/14/2001 15:16]:
OK, I've been teasing people about this for weeks, and it's time to stop.
This is the current state of the Perl 6 emulator; it applies most things
that Damian talked about in his keynote yesterday, and most of the things
I've picked up in
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
pointless.
For what it's worth, I like it.
Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 11:49:21PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
pointless.
For what
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
pointless.
For what it's worth, I like it.
So do
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:49:21 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
Does anyone else see a problem with =~ ?
Does anyone else see a problem with $negated=~$scalar; ? :)
You forgot the space between the = and the ~. And yes, that is a bit
of a problem.
--
Bart.
For what it's worth, I like it.
So do I, actually... it's sort of growing on me.
Me too. (I think it (~ for concat, ^ for negation) is just fine.)
The clash with =~ is disappointing though.
Now if Larry had the cahones to change the =~ operator...
(I find the notion of a short infix word,
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
pointless.
For what it's worth, I like it.
Does anyone else see a problem with =~
10 matches
Mail list logo
