r29129 - docs/Perl6/Spec

[pugs-c...@feather.perl6.nl]

Author: lwall
Date: 2009-11-19 05:34:29 +0100 (Thu, 19 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 29129

Modified:
docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
Log:
[S04] as several folks have suggested, rename "blorst" to "blast"

Modified: docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
===================================================================
--- docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod 2009-11-18 18:51:35 UTC (rev 29128)
+++ docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod 2009-11-19 04:34:29 UTC (rev 29129)
@@ -1226,8 +1226,8 @@
our $temphandle = START maketemp();

In fact, most of these phasers will take either a block or a statement
-(known as a I<blorst> in the vernacular).
-This can be particularly useful to expose a lexically scoped
+(known as a I<blast> in the vernacular). The statement form can be
+particularly useful to expose a lexically scoped
declaration to the surrounding context. Hence these declare the same
variables with the same scope as the preceding example, but run the
statements as a whole at the indicated time:

[Darren Duncan]

"It was the best of times, it was the *blurst* of times! Stupid monkey!"

[Thom Boyer]

I'm curious about the change from "blorst" to "blast." I quickly figured out
that "blorst" was
derived from "BLock OR STatement" (as S04 used to say: "In fact,
most of these phasers will take either a block or a statement (known as
a I<blorst> in the vernacular)).

The best that I can figure for "blast" is "BLock And STatement." But using
AND
seems less correct to me. Furthermore, "blast" is less likely to google up
the results I need.

So, what exactly _is_ the derivation of "blast"?

[Jerry Gay]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:17, Thom Boyer <th...@boyers.org> wrote:
> I'm curious about the change from "blorst" to "blast." I quickly figured out
> that "blorst" was
> derived from "BLock OR STatement" (as S04 used to say: "In fact,
> most of these phasers will take either a block or a statement (known as
> a I<blorst> in the vernacular)).
>
> The best that I can figure for "blast" is "BLock And STatement." But using
> AND
> seems less correct to me. Furthermore, "blast" is less likely to google up
> the results I need.
>
> So, what exactly _is_ the derivation of "blast"?
>

perhaps 'BLock or A STatement' or 'BLock, Alternatively, STatement',
or you can simply think of it as misspelled but nicer on the ears than
the eyes.
~jerry

[Geoffrey Broadwell]

I kinda like 'blorst'. The word makes me think of a warm stew on a cold
winter night. And I agree with the searchability advantage of 'blorst'
as well.

</bikeshed>

-'f

[Thom Boyer]

pugs-c...@feather.perl6.nl wrote:
> Author: lwall
> Date: 2009-11-19 05:34:29 +0100 (Thu, 19 Nov 2009)
> New Revision: 29129
>
> Modified:
> docs/Perl6/Spec/S04-control.pod
> Log:
> [S04] as several folks have suggested, rename "blorst" to "blast"

I'm curious about this change. I quickly figured out that "blorst" was
derived from "BLock OR STatement" (quoting the previous rev: "In fact,
most of these phasers will take either a block or a statement (known as

a I<blorst> in the vernacular)).

The best that I can figure for "blast" is "BLock And STatement", which
seems to me like a less-descriptive name. And "blast" is less likely to

google up the results I need.

So, what exactly _is_ the derivation of "blast"?

=thom