Front page | perl.perl6.language.data |
Postings from September 2000
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:30:22PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote: > > Well, this shows that you entirely miss the problem of cryptocontexts. > > Context is determined by the "environment" of the operation, not by > > the operation. Context is propagated: > > > > the-left-hand-side-of-assignment ---> the-right-hand-side-of-assignment > > > so what is wrong with the statement '@y = 3*@x;' then ? That other constructs *also* create an array context, in which the behaviour of multiplication you propose is not appropriate. > > Changing Perl in this respect will make one particular mode of > > operation a tiny bit simpler, but (without major changes to > > cryptocontexting - <PLUG> see for example my interview on perl.com > > </PLUG>) will make life much harder in other modes of operation. > I think major changes are what we aree talking about here. I did not see any viable proposal on changing things in a major way. To design such a change is a *major* work. We need to keep a lot of possible combinations with other features in mind, and understand all the ramifications and desired/undesired interaction. We need insight. We need to balance the tradeoffs. I do not think we made *any* step in the correct direction yet. > > Remember: do you do your system mainainance in Mathematica? Why? > > Remember that Wolfram *wanted* you to do this? Perl5 is much better > > balanced. You are pulling the blanket to your side of the bed. > > I am not sure what point you are trying to make about Mathematica? I > have read intevrviews with Woldfram ,he is clearky an egomanica and > thinks everything should be an expression, but I am not sure he > was arguing for system management in Mathematica. I did not mean interviews. 10 years ago I read the manual. It was clearly there. IlyaThread Previous | Thread Next