Re: Bracekets

2002-04-09 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 20:39, Larry Wall wrote: Aaron Sherman writes: : If {} goes away in Perl6, then everything you've heard about Perl6 being : not really all that different from Perl5 is either a lie or a damned : lie. People keep saying it's just Perl5, but instead of syntax X, you :

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-09 Thread Luke Palmer
If the new, spiffy features of Perl6 are out of my reach that 60-80% of the time, and I have to use perl5compat -nle ..., then the usefulness of this new language will be largely lost on me. I'm not sure I follow. What hypothetical features are you talking about here? From what I've seen,

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-09 Thread Simon Cozens
Aaron Sherman: perl -MNet::Ping -nle 'print Ghost DHCP lease: $1 if /lease\s+(\d\S+)/ ! Net::Ping-new(icmp)-ping($1)' \ /var/state/dhcp/dhcpd.leases This becomes perl -MNet::Ping -nle 'print Ghost DHCP lease: $1 if /lease\s+(\d\S+)/ !

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-09 Thread Piers Cawley
Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:17:38PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: Aaron Sherman: nice du -a | sort -n | tail -300 | tac | perl -nle ' die Require non-zero disk size!\n unless $ENV{DF}; if ($. == 1) {

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-09 Thread Piers Cawley
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Piers Cawley: Well, no. Because Perl 6 is specified as behaving like perl 5 until told different. Which means that the first translation you give would be a syntax error. Ouch. Guess I need to go reread A1. Anyway, that makes it easier - then there

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 2:33 PM +0100 4/7/02, Piers Cawley wrote: Jonathan E. Paton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but wait, there's more... what does: @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c] give? Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in @multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to []. Hrm. Will they need to? That could

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Jonathan E. Paton
but wait, there's more... what does: multi_dim[$a][$b][$c] give? Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to []. Hrm. Will they need to? That could arguably pass a three element key ($a,$b,$c) to multi_dim which, conveniently being

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Piers Cawley
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 2:33 PM +0100 4/7/02, Piers Cawley wrote: Jonathan E. Paton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but wait, there's more... what does: @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c] give? Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in @multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to [].

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 13:01, Jonathan E. Paton wrote: I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write the RPC: Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays or Save our array! Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase: If {} goes away in Perl6, then everything you've

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Piers Cawley
Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 13:01, Jonathan E. Paton wrote: I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write the RPC: Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays or Save our array! Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase: If

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Jonathan E. Paton
I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write the RPC: Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays or Save our array! Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase: If {} goes away in Perl6, then everything you've heard about Perl6 being not really all

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Jonathan Scott Duff
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:50:55PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote: Also, just wondering: $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ does that work the way I expect it to? Well, my internal Perl 6 parser hadn't been used all that much, but if you expect this to be a syntax error, then I think you're

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Mark J. Reed
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Also, just wondering: $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ does that work the way I expect it to? Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's going to be a syntax error at the third '_'. But I'm not

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Piers Cawley
Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Also, just wondering: $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ does that work the way I expect it to? Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's going to be a

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 14:56, Piers Cawley wrote: Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, just wondering: $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ does that work the way I expect it to? Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's going to be a syntax error at

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:09, Mark J. Reed wrote: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: Also, just wondering: $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ does that work the way I expect it to? Dunno, what do you expect it to do?. To my way of thinking there's

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Aaron Sherman
On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 15:12, Piers Cawley wrote: Mark J. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 07:56:11PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote: $_[_][EMAIL PROTECTED] _=_0_-_ $_.[_()] _ @_._() _= _0_() - _() [...] This is where my interpretation fails because the result of

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Nicholas Clark
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 06:01:57PM +0100, Jonathan E. Paton wrote: To make the symbols {} and [] aggregate you'd have to default [] to using hashes - and force it back to arrays using explicit syntax. You can't automagically decide that it's never going to be used like a hash. I'm I

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Larry Wall
Aaron Sherman writes: : On Mon, 2002-04-08 at 13:01, Jonathan E. Paton wrote: : : I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write : the RPC: : : Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays : : or : : Save our array! : : Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase: :

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Erik Steven Harrison
$a is a hash key $b is an array index $c is another hash key So, if I try: multi_dim[$b][$a][$c] then it's obviously going to break. But how can I, the programmer, easily spot that? It's not as clear as: multi_dim{$a}[$b]{$c} where I can see what I'm getting as I work through the data

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-08 Thread Luke Palmer
As to the inspring issue about using [] for hashes, I say go for it if (and only if) it is a signifigant improvement for the parser. I would imagine it's not. The braces are one of the things that make Perl feel like Perl. My original post that inspired this gigantic discussion was simply

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-07 Thread Jonathan E. Paton
I know this is going pretty far back in the design process, but I was wondering why we're using curlies for hash subscripts, now that the % sticks around when you key it. Then curlies could only two things : Anonymous hash making and closure making. Maybe it's just too much culture

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-07 Thread Michel J Lambert
but wait, there's more... what does: multi_dim[$a][$b][$c] give? It's representation hiding. I can change my layout from hashes to arrays without the clients of my code having to know. :) Seriously, the above argument might actually hold some merit when changing a matrix to a sparse matrix

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-07 Thread Jonathan E. Paton
but wait, there's more... what does: multi_dim[$a][$b][$c] give? It's representation hiding. I can change my layout from hashes to arrays without the clients of my code having to know. :) Seriously, the above argument might actually hold some merit when changing a matrix to a

Re: Bracekets

2002-04-07 Thread Piers Cawley
Jonathan E. Paton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but wait, there's more... what does: @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c] give? Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in @multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to []. -- Piers It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in possession of