Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from November 2004
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:05:03PM +0000, Matthew Walton wrote:
: So
:
: my @list = <foo bar baz>;
:
: is the equivalent of
:
: my @list = ('foo', 'bar', 'baz');
:
: ?
Yes.
: > * Since we already stole angles from iterators, «$fh» is not
: > how you make iterators iterate. Instead we use $fh.fetch (or
: > whatever) in scalar context, and $fh.fetch or @$fh or $fh[]
: > or *$fh in list context.
:
: That's doable. I take it that if I do
:
: for (@$fh) {
: ...
: }
:
: then $fh iterates lazily rather than exploding into an enormous list to
: be processed and chewing up all the RAM.
Correct. The p5-to-p6 translator will turn any
while (<handle>) {...}
into
for @$handle {...}
or whatever we decide is the correctest idiom.
: > * That frees up «...» for Something Else.
: >
: > * That something else is the requested variant of qw// that allows
: > interpolation and quoting of arguments in a shell-like manner.
:
: Mmmm so I can write
:
: my $foo = 'foo';
: my $bar = 'bar';
: my $baz = 'baz';
: my @list = «$foo $bar $baz»;
:
: and get the same @list I got earlier? Mighty cool.
I thought so.
: I don't think I've ever used a hash slice in my life. Is there something
: wrong with me?
No, a lot of people are naturally monoindexous.
: > * The Texas quotes <<...>> are only needed when you *have* to
: > interpolate.
:
: Does
:
: <<foo bar baz>>
:
: mean
:
: «foo bar baz»
:
: or
:
: ('<foo', 'bar', 'baz>')
:
: ?
The former. The <<...>> workaround is still the same, but needed a lot less.
: > * The :w splitting happens after interpolation. So
: >
: > « foo $bar @baz »
: >
: > can end up with lots of words, while
: >
: > « foo "$bar" "@baz" »
: >
: > is guaranteed to end up with three "words".
:
: See the comment about 'fabulouser' above and add another 'and
: fabulouser' to the end.
I neglected to mention that the smart quoter should also recognize
pair notation and handle it.
: > * Multimethed references could be distinghuised either way:
: >
: > &bark«Tree»
: > &bark<Dog>
:
: Good, so those of us who wish to use as much Unicode as possible can do
: so without having to rewrite the grammar. Excellent ;-)
I neglected to mention that we also naturally get both of:
circumfix:«< >»
circumfix:<« »>
in addition to
circumfix:{'<','>'}
circumfix:{'«','»'}
Have to be careful with
circumfix:«{ }»
though, since {...} interpolates these days.
Larry