Larry's Apocalypse 1

Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to perl6-language? *tap* *tap* is this thing on? Nat

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

,_=(map{U=_%16orE^=R^=110&(S=(unqT,"\xb\ntd\xbz\x14d")[_/16%8] );E ^=(72,@z=(64,72,G^=12*(U-2?0:S&17)),H^=_%64?12:0,@z)[_%8]}(16..271))[_]^((D> >=8 )+=P+(~F&E))for@a[128..$#a]}print+qT,@a}';s/[D-HO-U_]/\$$&/g;s/q/pack+/g;eva l -Original Message- From: Natha

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to > perl6-language? > *tap* *tap* is this thing on? Using module/class instead of package is exactly the same route that LaTeX took in the transition from 2.09 to 2e. It works quite we

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

In his Apoc, he talks about thrashing, and not being able to get his brain around things. I'm dealing with that now. Give me a little more time to divide it into smaller portions and chew it up. JJ * Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010405 02:50]: > Not a comment at all on it? Was I a

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

I tried to comment on "apocalypse" in Larry's most likely sense, but there was a mail flub (now corrected). Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to revealing that which was previously unseen or

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 11:46 PM 4/4/01 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: >Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to >perl6-language? > >*tap* *tap* is this thing on? Some of us got to reading Damian's design for Perl 5+i which was announced at the same time and are suffering from blown minds aft

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

All I could think was, "good thing the 3rd Camel came out before Larry used it to classify RFCs." :) I am glad RFC 141 was rejected, even if Larry claims it was for entertainment value. For the same reason people feel the need to explain the use of "apocalypse", the design of Perl 6 should not fo

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Peter Scott wrote: > Some of us got to reading Damian's design for Perl 5+i which was announced > at the same time and are suffering from blown minds after learning how fast > he wrote the thing. Consider how blown his mind is after WRITING it :-) > Oh, and who put him up to that, eh? I'm sure

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:28:34PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote: > I was very glad to see Larry address RFC 28 in the way he did; this will > be quoted often in the future, both concerning being "needlessly fearful" > of Perl adopting a different language paradigm, as well as the "essence" > of Perl bei

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:42:23AM +, David Grove wrote: > Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away > from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to > revealing that which was previously unseen or unheard, hidden behind a > veil of worlds

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Nathan Torkington wrote: > > *tap* *tap* is this thing on? (lame attempt at a "feedback" joke - ha ha) Like others, I'm amazed. It looks like Perl 6 is going to be incredibly coherent, despite the RFC frenzy. For now I have mainly compliments, and a few thoughts: 1. Breaking @foo vs. $foo

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:15:19PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > That is, every > Perl 6 program begins with "module main". Maybe there's a better way to > implement this? ("use 6.0" has much the same problem) "IDENTIFICATION DIVISION" -- DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology doe

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 08:25 PM 4/5/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:15:19PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: > > That is, every > > Perl 6 program begins with "module main". Maybe there's a better way to > > implement this? ("use 6.0" has much the same problem) > >"IDENTIFICATION DIVISION" For

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 12:15 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote: >1. Breaking @foo vs. $foo[] > >This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked >with end up writing: > >@foo[0] > >Which works. But then, they're completely confused by why: > >%foo{key} > >Doesn't. Or why @foo[0]

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 03:50:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > (We could even make > perl 5 completely OO if you wanted to write some code for the > SCALAR/HASH/ARRAY packages. Presumably in C, if you wanted to do: > >$foo = "12"; >print $foo->POK; > > to retrieve the POK flag, say.)

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 08:54 PM 4/5/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 03:50:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > (We could even make > > perl 5 completely OO if you wanted to write some code for the > > SCALAR/HASH/ARRAY packages. Presumably in C, if you wanted to do: > > > >$foo = "12"; > >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> >Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one > >swoop. Cool. > > > >Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting. > >Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the > >100% mark. > > I'd really rather not, and I don't think

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Nathan Wiger wrote: > Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting. > Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the > 100% mark. Wow, that's cool! > I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole > are strict/-w by default.

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Nathan Torkington wrote: > Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to > perl6-language? > > *tap* *tap* is this thing on? > > Nat Yes, well, my first impulse was to reply, making appropriate "Wow, that's cool" type of remarks, and then I decided to let it sink in a few days,

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> And what would be a better way of testing this out than being able to > make perl6 parse and run perl5 code correctly? (and I think that a key component > ways of making this workable would be to promote a descendent of > Parse::RecDescent to be the mechanism that parses perl for *real* and is

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:21:47PM -0700, Glenn Linderman wrote: > > I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole > > are strict/-w by default. But the "module main" tag causes the same > > problem Larry is opposed to with BASIC/PLUS "EXTEND". That is, every > > Perl 6 p

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Thus it was written in the epistle of Michael G Schwern, > I think he's saying that its annoying to have to write any sort of tag > that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of > every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "int > main(...)" in every C

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: > I think he's saying that its annoying to have to write any sort of tag > that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program here!" at the top of > every single program, much in the same way its tiresome to write "int > main(...)"

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Glenn Linderman wrote: > New RFC ideas? Please, dear God, no. :-) Nat

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > > > I think he's saying that its annoying to have to write any > > sort of tag that says "Hey, I'm starting a new Perl 6 program > > here!" at the top of every single program, mu

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Ted Ashton wrote: > Perhaps it could be > 1) If the code uses "module" or > 2) If the executable called ends in 6. Huh? -- perl4.036 -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Glenn Linderman wrote: > Then it might be easier to write modules that are testable without a test > driver. If you run the module directly, some distinguished block of code > could be executed that wouldn't be if the module were "included" via > "require" or "use" (or similar replacement constru

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 05:15:56PM -0400, Ted Ashton wrote: > 2) If the executable called ends in 6. ETOOMAGICAL. Shades of zip/unzip here. On some systems zip and unzip are just hard links to the same binary. It figures out what it supposed to do by what name is called. Very magical. Ve

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> One-liners run on a Perl 6 binary should just be Perl 6 code. Do we > really have to worry about backwards compatibility with one liners? > > Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be > troublesome. Why not: perl -e 'perl 5 one-liner' perl --cmd 'perl 6 one-liner' i.e

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Michael G Schwern wrote: > ETOOMAGICAL. Shades of zip/unzip here. On some systems zip and unzip > are just hard links to the same binary. It figures out what it > supposed to do by what name is called. Very magical. Very bad. Well, the proposed trick for perl would be bad; what zip does isn'

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: > Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to > perl6-language? > > *tap* *tap* is this thing on? > > Nat Me, I've been racking my brain to figure out whether Damian is Famine, War, Plague, or Death... -- $

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:42:23AM +, David Grove wrote: > > Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq > away > > from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to > > revealing that which was previo

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 01:33 PM 4/5/2001 -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > > >Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one > > >swoop. Cool. > > > > > >Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting. > > >Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 06:12:30PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Michael G Schwern wrote: > > ETOOMAGICAL. Shades of zip/unzip here. On some systems zip and unzip > > are just hard links to the same binary. It figures out what it > > supposed to do by what name is called. Very magical. Very bad

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> >And what would be a better way of testing this out than being able to > >make perl6 parse and run perl5 code correctly? > > Well, I think it'd be easier to write a proper C parser for perl. Or an APL > one. Heck, depending on what Larry does a Forth one might be easier. Perl 5 > has a *lot*

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Nathan> This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked Nathan> with end up writing: Nathan>@foo[0] Nathan> Which works. "Works", for some odd meaning of the word "works". Ever try this: @foo[0] = ;

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > > I'd really rather not, and I don't think that was Larry's intention. I > > think rather it was "perl 5 warning/strict levels", not "parse as perl 5 > > code". At least I hope that's the case... > well, personally I would rather

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 10:10:47PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > Then it might be easier to write modules that are testable without a test > > driver. If you run the module directly, some distinguished block of code > > could be executed that wouldn't be if the module were "included" via >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Graham Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have not looked at SelfTest, but I have always done this with > > unless (defined wantarray) { > # Self Test > } > > This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is > evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is in a void contex

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > unless (defined wantarray) { > # Self Test > } > > This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is > evaluated in a scalar context. The main file is in a void context. Although Gisle's recent patch changes this f

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote: > One-liners run on a Perl 6 binary should just be Perl 6 code. Do we > really have to worry about backwards compatibility with one liners? [ . . . ] > Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be > troublesome. Yes, precisely. I

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Nathan Wiger wrote: > I'm unsure about the "module main" idea. I like that modules as a whole > are strict/-w by default. But the "module main" tag causes the same > problem Larry is opposed to with BASIC/PLUS "EXTEND". That is, every > Perl 6 program begins with "module mai

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:31:40PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:01:47AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > > unless (defined wantarray) { > > # Self Test > > } > > > > This works because whenever a file is use'd, require'd etc. it is > > evaluated in a scalar context. The

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > > > Although Gisle's recent patch changes this for "do" at least. > > Hm, I did not see that. Can someone explain what the patch changed > or give me a link to the thread. @foo = do "you"; now works -- I will not suffer fools g

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Andy Dougherty wrote: > Yes, precisely. I often have one-liners embedded in larger shell scripts. > Most of those survived the perl4->perl5 transition intact. I'd hope the > same can be said for the perl5->perl6 transition. This is exactly the situation that Larry mentioned on Wednesday as an e

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

David Grove writes: : [1] Strongs is pure Koine. I'd think Larry would be more of the Ionic : type. You might say I get a charge out of Homer. :-) Actually, I've done more Attic than Ionic. And I haven't done enough of any of them to get very far from my lexicon. But I started Greek at Seatt

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Randal L. Schwartz writes: : > "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : : Nathan> This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've worked : Nathan> with end up writing: : : Nathan>@foo[0] : : Nathan> Which works. : : "Works", for some odd meaning of the word

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Larry Wall wrote: > There will probably be optional modifiers before colon > for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an > inner:* operator from and outer:* operator. I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace. > It also means that every operator has a functio

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:36:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Larry Wall wrote: > > There will probably be optional modifiers before colon > > for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an > > inner:* operator from and outer:* operator. > > I balk at the proposition of Y

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 02:36:40PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace. Where? > > It also means that every operator has a function name, > > I would think that would be the case, regardless of the > form the general operator syntax takes. And functio

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:52:47PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > > > > > Although Gisle's recent patch changes this for "do" at least. > > > > Hm, I did not see that. Can someone explain what the patch changed > > or give me a link

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > Ah OK. So I assume that > do "you"; > will do the file in a void context Theoretically, yes. (ie, probably not.) -- If computer science was a science, computer "scientists" would study what computer systems do and draw well-reas

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type, > > I trust that you will think long and hard about that. Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque filenames for "opening" them and doing IO

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:57:28PM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote: > > Ah OK. So I assume that > > do "you"; > > will do the file in a void context > > Theoretically, yes. (ie, probably not.) >From bleadperl t/op/do.t: if (open(DO, ">

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> > > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type, > > > > I trust that you will think long and hard about that. > > Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an > open-ended story. It is certainly nice to think of them as opaque > filenames for "opening" them

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On 4/6/01 2:17 PM, Larry Wall wrote: > P.S. Larry's Second Law of Language Redesign: Larry gets the colon. My initial reaction: Larry can keep it! ;) (go ahead, make me a believer... :) -John

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 01:19:30PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote: > > > > It might even mean that we can have a URL literal type, > > > > > > I trust that you will think long and hard about that. > > > > Agreed. Saying "URL literal type" is rather bold since "URL" is an > > open-ended story. It is c

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > So URLs are not > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames > may be too simplistic. Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them. I don't know if this is something we want to follow Rebol's lead on, but it's something to look at. -- John Por

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > Doesn't look like another namespace, but rather an extension of an > existing one to me. An extension of a namespace? What's that? Either "modifiers" will be symbols in an existing namespace, or they will be in their own namespace. -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Simon Cozens wrote: > John Porter wrote: > > I balk at the proposition of Yet Another Namespace. > > Where? Modifiers. > And functions have attributes, so no new namespace. You're saying modifiers and attributes will live in the same namespace? Possible, I guess, but not necessarily logical.

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:34:07PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > > And functions have attributes, so no new namespace. > > You're saying modifiers and attributes will live in the > same namespace? Possible, I guess, but not necessarily > logical. Hmm. No, come to think of it, that wouldn't work.

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > So URLs are not > > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames > > may be too simplistic. > > Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with them. I doubt it. telephone:? fax:? lpp:?

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> if (open(BLAH, ">mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ... Ah yes. You did say "scheme", didn't you? Well then, consider the PR value. ;-)

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Adam Turoff wrote: > If Rebol can handle all of those URL schemes, why bother with Perl > in the first place? Should I legitimize that with a response? -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:37:35PM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote: > On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > > Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: > > > So URLs are not > > > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames > > > may be too simplistic. > > > > Yeah. Bu

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:32:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > Doesn't look like another namespace, but rather an extension of an > > existing one to me. > > An extension of a namespace? What's that? > Either "modifiers" will be symbols in an existing namespace, >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 11:17 AM 4/6/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote: >Randal L. Schwartz writes: >: > "Nathan" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >: >: Nathan> This is interesting, and in my gut I like it. Many people I've >worked >: Nathan> with end up writing: >: >: Nathan>@foo[0] >: >: Nathan> Which

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote: > This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't > see any reason that: > > @foo[1,2] = ; > > shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why > Fair enough > @bar = @foo * 12; > > shouldn't assign

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Richard Proctor wrote: > but what should > @bar = @foo x 2; > do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current > behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs) How is one significantly less useful than the other? -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as >> accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening >> of that path other than the fact that it is a URL. This renders it pretty >> useless as a structure to

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:31:56PM -0400, John Porter wrote: >> Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: >> > So URLs are not >> > literals, they have structure, and only thinking of them as filenames >> > may be too simplistic. >> >> Yeah. But Rebol manages to deal with

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> if (open(BLAH,">:URL","mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ... > > Now PerlIO/URL.pm has to know the semantics of /^mailto:/. > If it does it can do DNS lookup for MX record for north.pole and > presumably fail and return undef. > > Oops sorry that is perl5 ;-) Which part? "Presumably", "fail"

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 08:42:18PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> But the structure you speak of exists only on the server. A URL as > >> accessor reference doesn't really need to know anything about the opening > >> of that path other than the

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri 06 Apr, John Porter wrote: > Richard Proctor wrote: > > but what should > > @bar = @foo x 2; > > do? Repeat @foo twice or repeat each element twice? (its current > > behaviour is less than useless, other than for JAPHs) > > How is one significantly less useful than the other? >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Richard Proctor wrote: > perhaps you are thinking of, > the current behavior of @bar = (@foo) x 2 Yes, right. Opps. -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Dan Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> if (open(BLAH,">:URL","mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]")) { ... >> >> Now PerlIO/URL.pm has to know the semantics of /^mailto:/. >> If it does it can do DNS lookup for MX record for north.pole and >> presumably fail and return undef. >> >> Oops sorry that i

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 11:17:49AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote: > Hence, :+ would be pairwise array addition. Sounds quite reasonable. > There will probably be optional modifiers before colon > for various reasons. This has the result that we could distinguish an > inner:* operator from and oute

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

James Mastros wrote: > > print $::OUT http://www.wall.org/~larry/index.html; > Please, no! A URL isn't a /new/ type of literal, really. > Either it's a > wierd form of a literal list, or it's a > wierd type of file name, so you should open() it. Or it's > a self-quoting literal, like Package

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

David Whipp wrote: > It would be nice to say: > $mySite = http://www.foo.bar/text.html; Vs. $mySite = new URL 'http://www.foo.bar/text.html'; I am far from convinced. -- John Porter

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 03:08:39PM -0700, David Whipp wrote: > I could go further: If I'm reading a URL of type html then, after reading > it, I should be able to say: > > $header = $page->head; > $title = $page->title; A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in tha

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/5/01 12.15: >2. package vs. module/class >Whoa. This is so simple yet so sublime. It solves so many issues in one swoop. Cool. >Assuming Perl6 will be parsing Perl5 code? Hmmm. That's interesting. Forget p52p6 and the whole 80/20 thing, we could potentially hit the

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

John Porter wrote: > > $mySite = http://www.foo.bar/text.html; > Vs. > $mySite = new URL 'http://www.foo.bar/text.html'; > > I am far from convinced. Simon Coxens wrote > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program > in than some that do. > -- Dennis M. R

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:46:12PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote: > > Not a comment at all on it? Was I accidentally unsubscribed to > > perl6-language? > > > > *tap* *tap* is this thing on? > > > > Nat > > Me, I've been racking my brain to fig

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote: > > > I'd really rather not, and I don't think that was Larry's intention. I > > > think rather it was "perl 5 warning/strict levels", not "parse as perl 5 > > > code". At least I hope tha

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 09:40 PM 4/6/2001 +0100, Richard Proctor wrote: >On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I don't > > see any reason that: > > > > @foo[1,2] = ; > > > > shouldn't read just two lines from that filehandle, for example, nor why >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

David Whipp wrote: > > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program > > in than some that do. > > The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it" To which the obvious reply is: 'Although the Perl Slogan is "There's More Than One Way to Do It", I hesitate

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

> David Whipp wrote: > > > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program > > > in than some that do. > > > > The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it" > To which the obvious reply is: > > 'Although the Perl Slogan is "There's More Than One Way > to Do

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Greg Boug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 'Although the Perl Slogan is "There's More Than One Way >> to Do It", I hesitate to make 10 ways to do something.' >> - Larry Wall > Just an off topic remark... Does anyone know where I can get a copy of > all these little gems from? :)

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

"David Whipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > One-liners run on a Perl 6 binary should just be Perl 6 code. Do we > > really have to worry about backwards compatibility with one liners? > > > > Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be > > troublesome. > > > Why not: > >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Whipp wrote: > > > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program > > > in than some that do. > > > > The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it" > > To which the obvious reply is: > > 'Although the P

RE: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 12:31 PM 4/9/2001 +1000, Greg Boug wrote: > > David Whipp wrote: > > IOW, simply to have AWTDI is one of the worst reasons to add a > > feature. If it doesn't make the language *better*, LEAVE IT OUT. > >The same is true for anything... Sometimes a minimalist approach >is the right way to do i

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Greg Boug wrote: > Sometimes a minimalist approach > is the right way to do it... If one believes that, wrt programming languages, then one is opposed to the philosophy of Perl. Oh well. > The problem is to make sure when > using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small... If y

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

Dan Sugalski wrote: > I, for > one, would like to bundle code to handle all the common protocols (SMTP, > NNTP, NNTP, Mail, HTTP, and SOAP, at least) in with perl 6, or with the > perl 6 common library. Absolutely. Can we engrave that in a PDD sometime soon? >open PAGE, "http://www.perl

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

David Grove wrote: > Does your "A" stand for "A" or "Another"? The latter. Sorry, guess I shouldn't have abbreviated it. > The second point is that, John, you forget that Rebol actually did have > some degree of kewlness to it I don't think I'm forgetting that. I'm just resisting the tempt

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:37:19AM -0400, John Porter wrote: > Greg Boug wrote: > > Sometimes a minimalist approach > > is the right way to do it... > > If one believes that, wrt programming languages, then one > is opposed to the philosophy of Perl. Oh well. Uhm, no. Not at all. Just because t

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:48:43AM -0400, John Porter wrote: > > Yes, we could throw damned well everything into > > Perl, and you might want to consider that "equally valid". > > I might, but I wouldn't. That's precisely why I'm arguing > against adding URLs as an intrinsic type! Then you are

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote: > > > Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be > > > troublesome. > > > > Why not: > > > > perl -e 'perl 5 one-liner' > > > > perl --cmd 'perl 6 one-liner' > > > > i.e. maintain the "-e" switch as a backward compatibility flag,

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 05:21 PM 4/9/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 11:48:43AM -0400, John Porter wrote: > > > Yes, we could throw damned well everything into > > > Perl, and you might want to consider that "equally valid". > > > > I might, but I wouldn't. That's precisely why I'm arguing >

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 09:35 AM 4/9/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: >At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote: >> > > Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be >> > > troublesome. >> > >> > Why not: >> > >> > perl -e 'perl 5 one-liner' >> > >> > perl --cmd 'perl 6 one-liner' >> > >> > i.e.

Re: Larry's Apocalypse 1

At 12:38 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote: >>>One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go >>>the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At >>>the very least, I want a short flag! >> >>But by the time people learned to use '-6' we'd have Perl 7 ou

  1   2   3   >