Ed Peschko writes:
> I agree with all that you said above, I'm just saying we should make typing []
> *optional*. 99% of the time, people are not going to need it, as they are not
> defining their own operators as you did above.
>
> Ed
>
>
long ago ( when xor was "!" and ^ was called h
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:18:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
snip ...
>
> in that case the vectorization is *compleatly* orthogonal to the
> details of op and we even can have something like
>
> @a ^[{ $^a > $^b ?? 1 :: ($^a,$^b) := ($^b,$^a) }] @b
>
I agree with all that you
Larry Wall <> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:51:17AM -0700, John Williams wrote:
> > Right. ^= is rather pointless, because = already understands list
> > context.
>
> They're not quite the same because list assignment truncates first. To wit:
>
> @a = [1,2,3];
> @b = [4,5
to me , this discussion approaches the conclusion that
^[] and v[] are *just* another operators with their own behavior
that accept as ( optional ) argument a Code reference .
to follow the beautifull philosophy of perl6 -- "A is just B" we can
say ( following Larry Wall )
...
>
On 31 Oct 2002 at 16:04, Brent Dax wrote:
> Markus Laire:
> # Emacs and vim also works on Windows, not just UNIX.
>
> So does DOS 'edit'. That doesn't mean Windows users use it. Windows
> users want tools that look and act like Windows tools--if they didn't,
> they'd be using another OS. Neith
>> So again, I don't see the difference between the two. ^[+]= and ^+= are
>> synonyms as far as I can see, and hence no need for the first form.
> Only in the absence of overloading, and only because we've naively defined
> array ops to always do "union" rather than "intersection". If there we
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, it was written:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Ed Peschko wrote:
> > So again, I don't see the difference between the two. ^[+]= and ^+= are synonyms
> > as far as I can see, and hence no need for the first form.
>
> Only in the absence of overloading, and only bec
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 11:51:17AM -0700, John Williams wrote:
> Right. ^= is rather pointless, because = already understands list
> context.
They're not quite the same because list assignment truncates first. To wit:
@a = [1,2,3];
@b = [4,5];
@a = @b;# @a gets [4,5]
@a ^=
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 10:35:08AM -0800, Ed Peschko wrote:
> So again, I don't see the difference between the two. ^[+]= and ^+= are synonyms
> as far as I can see, and hence no need for the first form.
Only in the absence of overloading, and only because we've naively defined array
ops to always
--- Ed Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > right, and what does this all mean? I have yet to see a good
> meaning
> > > for
> > > @array ^[+]= @array2 ...
> >
> > I think it's this:
> >
> > @a [+=] @b -> @a[x] += @b[x]
> >
> > @a [+]= @b -> @temp = @a [+] @b; a = @temp;
> >
>
> Ok, s
On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Ed Peschko wrote:
> @a ^[+]= @b;
compared to
> @a ^+= @b;
>
> ie: they are exactly the same.
You are right, you get the same answer whether you do the hyper or the
assignment first, except in the "scalar ^op= list", in which case doing
the assignment last gets you the
Ed Peschko writes:
>
> So again, I don't see the difference between the two. ^[+]= and ^+= are synonyms
> as far as I can see, and hence no need for the first form.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
somebody before ( dont remember who)
showed how they can be different if the first argument is scalar.
a
> > right, and what does this all mean? I have yet to see a good meaning
> > for
> > @array ^[+]= @array2 ...
>
> I think it's this:
>
> @a [+=] @b -> @a[x] += @b[x]
>
> @a [+]= @b -> @temp = @a [+] @b; a = @temp;
>
Ok, so the '=' isn't being explicitly vectorized. So -
@a ^[+]= @
y> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:39:59 -0700 (MST)
> From: John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2002 17:40:00.0029 (UTC) FILETIME=[B38AC4D0:01C281CD]
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Ed Peschko wrote:
> Michael Lazarro wrote:
>
> > 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
> > ^[op] and <>
> > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
> > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
>
> hm. What was wrong with just '^' again? Reading th
> actually , ones we decide that ^ *is necessary for vectorization , we
> can allow other brackets , optional brackets ( where unambiguous ) ,
> and spaces inside the brackets :
>
> @a ^+= @b
> @a ^[+]= @b
> @a ^(+)= @b
> @a ^( + )= @b
> @a ^{ + }= @b
> @a ^{+}= @b
> @a ^[ + ]= @b
>
rig
Markus Laire:
# Emacs and vim also works on Windows, not just UNIX.
So does DOS 'edit'. That doesn't mean Windows users use it. Windows
users want tools that look and act like Windows tools--if they didn't,
they'd be using another OS. Neither GNU emacs nor xemacs fits the bill,
and I doubt vim
On 31 Oct 2002 at 15:59, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> Once you wander away from Latin-1 into the more general world
> of Unicode, you start running into trouble on the input side.
> On Windows you pretty much have to use the Character map accessory.
> Emacs and vim still work on UNIX, but I don't know of
Me writes:
> > > A ^ prefix visually interferes a lot more
> >
> > I know it clutters up things a bit, that's my very argument; that
> > ^[ ] clutters up things even *more*. especially, with use of arrays:
> >
> > @array[1,2,3] ^[+=] @array[4,5,6];
> >
> > bleah.
> >
> > @array[1,2,3
> Maybe. I slightly prefer the first line right now.
> But it's close, and I think I've gotten too used to
> both notations to know what I'd think if I saw one
> or other for the first time, and I don't know what
> I'd think after a month of use of one or other. As
> I said, it's close. This will
On 2002-10-31 at 12:45:23, David Wheeler wrote:
> Plus, it turns out not to be at all hard to type on Mac OS X. ;-)
Well, the angle quotes happen to fall within Latin-1, and so they're
easier to get to. On Windows you can either set up special key mappings or
just type ALT+171 for « and ALT+187 fo
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 11:36 AM, Me wrote:
A ^ prefix visually interferes a lot more with the op being
hypered. I didn't understand that until I first saw use of
square brackets (interestingly, use of angle brackets
didn't grab my attention, though that may have been
due to other fact
> > A ^ prefix visually interferes a lot more
>
> I know it clutters up things a bit, that's my very argument; that
> ^[ ] clutters up things even *more*. especially, with use of arrays:
>
> @array[1,2,3] ^[+=] @array[4,5,6];
>
> bleah.
>
> @array[1,2,3] ^+= @array[4,5,6];
>
> Not much of a i
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:36:20PM -0600, Me wrote:
> > > 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
> > > ^[op] and <>
> > > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
> > > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
> >
> > hm. What was wrong with just '^' again?
>
> Right. I d
> > 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
> > ^[op] and <>
> > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
> > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
>
> hm. What was wrong with just '^' again?
Right. I didn't have a problem with ^ in the first place.
But...
A ^ prefix
> Mailing-List: contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]; run by ezmlm
> Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:13:28 -0800
> From: Ed Peschko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-SMTPD: qpsmtpd/0.12, http://develooper.com/code/qpsmtpd/
>
> Michael Lazarro wrote:
>
> > 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
>
Michael Lazarro wrote:
> 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
>^[op] and <>
> have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
> bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
hm. What was wrong with just '^' again? Reading the threads, it seems to have
gotten lost in the sh
27 matches
Mail list logo
