At 01:03 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00025.html > >Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, except I like '-q' better >than '-z' for aesthetic reasons. > >So... what was the rationale against it? Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of the opposing viewpoint... -- Peter Scott Pacific Systems Design Technologies
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Dan Sugalski
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs Branden
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... John Porter
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for su... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Peter Scott
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Edward Peschko
- Re: Closures and default lexical-scope fo... Nathan Wiger
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closu... Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closu... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closu... Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN schwern
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN Edward Peschko
- Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN John Porter
- Go to perl6-language-strict please (was R... schwern
- Re: Go to perl6-language-strict please (w... Edward Peschko