On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, James Mastros wrote:
OTOH, I realize now you can do that with zip in P6, in which case you do have
a mention of the whole variable to stick a my on -- Cmy %foo = zip(@keys,
@values); I think Cmy [EMAIL PROTECTED] = @values; reads better though, even
though looking at it
Luke Palmer wrote:
James Mastros writes:
Does this imply that it's now possible to type Cmy @foo[23] = 42;, and
declare @foo? In the current perl, this doesn't work -- it's a syntax
error. It'd certainly make many constructs easier.
That looks weird to me. But as Rod points out, it can be
On 2004-12-19 at 21:35:46, Luke Palmer wrote:
In Perl 5 you can do the hackish:
(\my @foo)-[23] = 42;
Hm. My reaction to the above is, and I think I speak for the entire
assemblage when I say this, Yuckbo.
:)
Now, (my @foo)[23] would be somewhat better, but of course, that's
James Mastros skribis 2004-12-19 23:00 (+0100):
Juerd wrote:
Just typing my before the first use of a variable isn't hard, and it
makes things much clearer for both the programmer and the machine.
Does this imply that it's now possible to type Cmy @foo[23] = 42;, and
declare @foo? In the
On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:25:58PM -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
: Another facet of this discussion comes into account when also specifying
: type.
:
: from S9:
: my bit @bits;
: my int @ints;
: my num @nums;
: my int4 @nybbles;
: my str @buffers;
: my ref[Array] @ragged2d;
: my complex128
Juerd wrote:
Just typing my before the first use of a variable isn't hard, and it
makes things much clearer for both the programmer and the machine.
Does this imply that it's now possible to type Cmy @foo[23] = 42;, and
declare @foo? In the current perl, this doesn't work -- it's a syntax
James Mastros wrote:
Juerd wrote:
Just typing my before the first use of a variable isn't hard, and it
makes things much clearer for both the programmer and the machine.
Does this imply that it's now possible to type Cmy @foo[23] = 42;,
and declare @foo? In the current perl, this doesn't work
On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 20:25 -0600, Rod Adams wrote:
One of the other reasons in favor of the idea was aesthetic.
# stuff which declares $x, $z, and $q
$x = 4;
my $y = 7;
$z = 12;
my $r = 4543;
$q = 121;
compared to:
# stuff which declares $x, $z, and $q
$x = 4;
$y = 7;
$z =
Considering that proper and common usage, not to mention strictures,
dictates a heavy insistence on 'my'. I will thus assume that creation of
lexical variables with 'my' far out numbers the creation of package
space globals. Should we not then have it where it's the default
behavior, and
Rod Adams writes:
Considering that proper and common usage, not to mention strictures,
dictates a heavy insistence on 'my'. I will thus assume that creation
of lexical variables with 'my' far out numbers the creation of package
space globals. Should we not then have it where it's the default
Rod Adams skribis 2004-12-18 14:55 (-0600):
Considering that proper and common usage, not to mention strictures,
dictates a heavy insistence on 'my'. I will thus assume that creation of
lexical variables with 'my' far out numbers the creation of package
space globals. Should we not then
- Original Message -
From: Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, December 18, 2004 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: Auto My?
Rod Adams writes:
There are pros and cons, and it basically ends up being a design
choice.
Well, at least when strictures are on. When they are off, the
coder
JOSEPH RYAN writes:
As bad of an idea that I think this is, I wonder if Perl6's reflection
capabilities will be powerful enough to where a module/pragma could be
written that would be able to do this? For instance, one idea was:
lexically change the current grammar to a subclass of the
13 matches
Mail list logo
