On Thu, July 14, 2005 10:47 am, Autrijus Tang said:
> If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
>
> 1. Meaning of $_
>
> .method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
> error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
> explanataion is acceptable but suboptim
I'd have to agree.
I also think that .foo should always mean $_.foo in methods, without causing
any errors if $?SELF =:= $_ becomes false.
OK. There is a lot of historical threads on the subject and already a lot of
"legacy" in the Perl6 language.
OK - As I understand it, this is what A12 say
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400):
> > Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we
> > need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust
> > @larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:09:57AM +0300, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
> > : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
> > : top?).
> >
> > It means th
Yuval Kogman skribis 2005-07-15 1:09 (+0300):
> > use dot;
> If we have pragmas for the 99 Perl6's that every wacko wants to
> have, we won't have any readability.
> The syntax needs to be consistent and useful, even at the price of
> some danger.
Agreed.
> I don't want to be using a languag
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-14 13:39 (-0700):
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
> : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
> : top?).
> It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous.
Thus it never means $?SELF.foo without $_ bei
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 13:39:44 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
> : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
> : top?).
>
> It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
>
> use dot;
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 01:39:44PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
> : So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
> : top?).
>
> It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
If .method alwa
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:55:26PM -0400, Nathan Gray wrote:
: So long as .foo (pretty please) means $_.foo all the time (with sugar on
: top?).
It means that all the time, but only when unambiguous. If you say
use dot;
it'll always be construed as unambigous. You could go so far as to
say
Nathan Gray skribis 2005-07-14 12:55 (-0400):
> Autrijus joked? about $?.method once (instead of ./method), in case we
> need any more bad alternatives for $?SELF.method. But I also trust
> @larry, or %larry, or even $larry, to make a decent choice that will
> serve the community well.
Would this
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Carl Mäsak wrote:
> On 7/14/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
> > really hate when it's forced and used to test patience.
>
> If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situ
If this were a straw poll, I'd say...
1. Meaning of $_
.method should mean $_.method always. Making it into a runtime
error is extremely awkward; a compile-time error with detailed
explanataion is acceptable but suboptimal.
2. Topicalization of $?SELF
Neutral on this -- I can a
On 7/14/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
> really hate when it's forced and used to test patience.
If Juerd is right about this being a solomonian situation, let me just
give up my baby to the other woman by saying:
* "I
Aankhen skribis 2005-07-14 12:39 (+0530):
> Well, you've certainly got everyone flustered enough that they'll be
> overjoyed even if you pick the alternative they hated the most... :-)
It's just a Solomon judgement situation. That can work out well, but I
really hate when it's forced and used to t
On 7/14/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Certainly. The problem is that there are too many viable alternatives,
> and half of everyone hates half of the alternatives.
>
> You will know I'm no longer a benevolent dictator when I start to enjoy
> watching people squirm every time I chang
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:43:06PM +0530, Aankhen wrote:
: I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
: eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
: viable alternative that doesn't involve outlawing it?
Certainly. The problem is that there are too ma
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:36:23PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: > : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : The obvious thought is to have yet
Autrijus Tang wrote:
The compiler, in turn inspect whether there's an bound $_ in scope
with $?SELF set. It is not trivial, because this should work:
sub baz (&c) { c() }
method foo { baz { .bar } } # $_ is free in inner closure
But this needs to fail:
sub baz (&c) { c(1) }
On 7/12/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> Disallowing .method here means a huge step back in time. Back to
> $_.method or $object.method.
> [snip]
I agree with what is being said here. `.method` is a great way to
eliminate a lot of repetitive, tedious typing. Surely there is a
viab
I feel a "me too" post is in order.
I've written code that is 2-3 levels of nested given/when in a
method of an object that wasn't the topic.
I did not feel confused at all, juggling .foo and ./foo, which are
visually distinct, and different to type. They convey a big
difference of meaning, even
Larry Wall skribis 2005-07-11 18:29 (-0700):
> is that we simply outlaw .foo notation at *compile* time in those
> scopes where we know (at compile time) that $_ and $?SELF diverge.
> In such a scope you *must* specify $_ or $?SELF (or equivalent).
What?
That makes having a default at
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:04:54PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
> : On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : The obvious thought is to have yet another magical, $^H like flag, to
> : denote the current dialect. If
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:17:01AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: The obvious thought is to have yet another magical, $^H like flag, to
: denote the current dialect. If it is set, then the parser can emit
: .method as $_.method, instead
(Cross-posting the new ruling from p6l to p6c to discuss implementation
strategy)
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:29:28PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> {
> let $Larry.decisive = 1;
>
> Okay, this is what we're gonna do. We're gonna go back pretty close to
> where we were originally, but wit
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:50:56PM -0400, Matt Fowles wrote:
: Yay! I guess I will take this moment to resuggest @^ as a list of
: invocants and $^ =:= @^[0]. I like how the ^ kinda points you the
: right way, also visually distinctive and doesn't get in the way of
: $_...
I don't see much use f
Larry~
On 7/11/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
> : Hmmm... I am one of those who likes ./ more, instead. I mean, I _really_
> : like it! Thus, how about making '/' less meaningless, i.e. more
> : meaningful, in more general
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 11:14:18AM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
: Hmmm... I am one of those who likes ./ more, instead. I mean, I _really_
: like it! Thus, how about making '/' less meaningless, i.e. more
: meaningful, in more general situations?!?
Um, do you have a specific proposal? Like maybe
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005, Robin Redeker wrote:
I wasn't thinking 'cool', I was thinking 'visually distinctive and
mnemonic'. I actually think o. is cooler.
Yes, i would like o. more too. At least it doesn't introduce
a completly meaningless '/' preceded by a '.'.
Hmmm... I am one of those who lik
On 7/9/05, Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:36:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > : > Why does it have to be some sugared syntax when you can just simple
> > : > name it in the parameter list?
> > :
> > : Yes, but there seem to be quite some people who want
> > :
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:36:10AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : > Why does it have to be some sugared syntax when you can just simple
> : > name it in the parameter list?
> :
> : Yes, but there seem to be quite some people who want
> : a 'cool' syntax for it. (ie. ./method ()).
>
> I wasn't thi
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:43:01PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
: Maybe per .-file in the home-directory, like .vimrc ...
Only if pulled in with a "use". I don't want to see Perl programs
implicitly starting in a variant language. Dialects must be declared.
Otherwise you're in a situation like ha
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:28:34PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
: On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: > I have never understood what is wrong with this:
: >
: > method foo ($self: $bar) {
: > $self.baz()
: > }
:
: Thats a fine option to have.
: But therecomes anoth
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 10:07:24AM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
>
> On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote:
> >And what will be the default syntax to call
> >a method on self? If everyone has completly other
> >preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
> >syntax, which c
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> > And what will be the default syntax to call
> > a method on self? If everyone has completly other
> > preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method(
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:50:35AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> > And what will be the default syntax to call
> > a method on self? If everyone has completly other
> > preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method(
On Jul 8, 2005, at 2:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote:
And what will be the default syntax to call
a method on self? If everyone has completly other
preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
syntax, which completly wont fit into the language, whose
favorite will be the default?
None
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 08:10:00AM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> And what will be the default syntax to call
> a method on self? If everyone has completly other
> preferences about this, for example this horrible ./method()
> syntax, which completly wont fit into the language,
What a way to win f
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 08:12:17PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> The basic problem is that I always hated looking at C++ and not knowing
> whether I was looking at a function or a method, so I'm not going to
> make standard Perl work like that. On the other hand, there's always
>
> use self "";
> "LW" == Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
LW> to go with everyone else's preferences:
LW> use self "."
LW> use self "`"
LW> use self "·"
LW> use self ".."
LW> use self "^."
LW> use self "i."
LW> use self "o."
LW> use self "¤."
LW>
The basic problem is that I always hated looking at C++ and not knowing
whether I was looking at a function or a method, so I'm not going to
make standard Perl work like that. On the other hand, there's always
use self "";
to go with everyone else's preferences:
use self "."
use sel
On 7/8/05, Robin Redeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
> $self, and why does
>
>method ()
>
> not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++)
IIRC, Larry wants to be able to distinguish method calls from sub
calls
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:08:17PM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:32:37PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
> > $self, and why does
> >
> >method ()
> >
> > not work for calling a metho
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 10:32:37PM +0200, Robin Redeker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
> $self, and why does
>
>method ()
>
> not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++)
Because perl can't distinguish between the method foo() and
Hi,
i just wanted to ask what was about the method calling syntax on
$self, and why does
method ()
not work for calling a method on $self? (like in C++)
cya,
Robin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robin Redeker
44 matches
Mail list logo
