"Tim Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is it correct that Cygwin Perl/Tk requires a running X server?
That is one of the stranger assertions to pass by here in a while. More
so than the (OT, as there is that other list) complaint that installing
X from cyg
Michael Kairys wrote:
>
> "Reini Urban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Win32::OLE COM objects, Registry access, Win32:GUI and all of
>> libwin32 works fine on cygwin perl. With cygwin perl you have the best
>> of both worlds.
>
> Is it correct that Cygwin Perl/Tk requires a running X ser
"Reini Urban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
Win32::OLE COM objects, Registry access, Win32:GUI and all of
libwin32 works fine on cygwin perl. With cygwin perl you have the best
of both worlds.
Is it correct that Cygwin Perl/Tk requires a running X server?
--
Unsubscribe info: h
2007/11/7, Brian Mathis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Nov 7, 2007 10:44 AM, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
> > > I once, like you, wondered why I couldn't just have one installation
> > > of Perl or Python that works in either environment. Since I write
> > > sc
On 11 December 2007 12:21, Michael Kairys wrote:
> To accomplish this I have put cygwin\bin on my Windows path. What is your
> opinion on that, please?
A wholly excellent idea IMO :)
You can run into the occasional confusion about PATH ordering where there are
utilities of the same name. T
"Michael Kairys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As an aside, there seems to be something broken in my installation re. Tk
(or
perhaps I'm missing something). If I run a script containing (only) "use
Tk" I
get: Can't load '/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8/cygwin/auto
"Jevin Sweval" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At work, we develop using both Cygwin's perl and AS's perl (we
distribute our app to people without Cygwin but with ActivePerl).
Thank you for these comments, Your environment is similar to my situation;
my coworkers to
"Brian Mathis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the biggest problem you're having is conceptual. It's easy to
view a bash prompt as just a better DOS prompt that gives you unix
commands in addition to windows command line commands.
...
The solution is to star
"Andrew DeFaria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well that tells you that your previous invocations of system and backquote
constructs were not portable to start with. It would be far better to
centralize such things to a subroutine to try to mitigate the portabilit
"Andrew DeFaria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well that tells you that your previous invocations of system and backquote
constructs were not portable to start with. It would be far better to
centralize such things to a subroutine to try to mitigate the portability
At work, we develop using both Cygwin's perl and AS's perl (we
distribute our app to people without Cygwin but with ActivePerl). The
reason for using two different perls is to be able to test for
regressions between them. If a regression is found, it means that
we've made some incorrect assumption
Michael Kairys wrote:
Well, I gave it a try, and I can see that ain't gonna happen :)
It might take more effort than just installing Cygwin's Perl.
I reran setup and let it install perl and whatever else it wanted to
(so I now have ruby and phython as well); then I began running scripts
under
On Dec 7, 2007 4:53 PM, Michael Kairys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I gave it a try, and I can see that ain't gonna happen :)
>
> I reran setup and let it install perl and whatever else it wanted to (so I now
> have ruby and phython as well); then I began running scripts under both perls.
> I
Michael Kairys comcast.net> writes:
> I would prefer to maintain only one Perl installation and would in fact
> be perfectly happy to dump AS in favor of Cygwin if I could do so without
> major pain. You have encouraged me to at least give it a try.
Well, I gave it a try, and I can see that ain
Michael Kairys wrote:
> I see that quite a discussion has evolved since last I checked this
> thread.
Likewise. I've gone round and round on the issues of command.exe,
Windows Explorer, Cygwin, and Perl. Perl libraries and the various
maintenance tools add yet another dimension of complexity.
Michael Kairys wrote:
I want to type "perl foo.pl" at the Bash prompt
[snip]
I suppose I could rewrite my Bash aliases so "foo" equals "/c/Perl/bin/perl
foo.pl"
The solution is to break your habit of saying "perl foo.pl".
If the first line of a text file begins with "#!" and a valid pat
On Dec 6, 2007 2:23 PM, Michael Kairys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Sutton trilug.org> writes:
> >
> > Having done a bit of this myself, I'm interested into enquiring further
> > into your difficulties. Except for win32-specific modules, perl code
> > *should* *just work* for either cygwi
William Sutton trilug.org> writes:
>
> Having done a bit of this myself, I'm interested into enquiring further
> into your difficulties. Except for win32-specific modules, perl code
> *should* *just work* for either cygwin perl of for ActiveState. Last I
> checked (and it's been about a yea
Having done a bit of this myself, I'm interested into enquiring further
into your difficulties. Except for win32-specific modules, perl code
*should* *just work* for either cygwin perl of for ActiveState. Last I
checked (and it's been about a year), you should be able to get the
win32-specifi
DePriest, Jason R. gmail.com> writes:
> I have ActiveState Perl installed and cygwin perl.
> ...
> I have no problems when I use each version in the appropriate environment.
>
> Simple scripts can be written that will run in both environments.
> ...
> Cygwin handles the pathing so I never have a
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Nov 7 09:10, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Brian Mathis wrote:
[off-topic stuff]
[more off-topic stuff]
Can you please stop discussing this here? Whether or not it's good or
bad to write portable or non-portable scripts is really not an issue
for this ML. Consider to http:
On Nov 7 09:10, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Brian Mathis wrote:
>> [off-topic stuff]
> [more off-topic stuff]
Can you please stop discussing this here? Whether or not it's good or
bad to write portable or non-portable scripts is really not an issue for
this ML. Consider to http://cygwin.com/acronym
On Nov 7, 2007 10:44 AM, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
> > I once, like you, wondered why I couldn't just have one installation
> > of Perl or Python that works in either environment. Since I write
> > scripts, not code,
>
> An aside? How is a Perl script not
On Nov 7, 2007 10:31 AM, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Mathis wrote:
> > ActiveState Perl works very nicely (and the alternative is what,
> > vbscript?) on Windows.
> No the alternative is Cygwin's Perl on Windows, of course. Oh, and BTW,
> how much $$$ does ActiveState Perl cos
Brian Mathis wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 10:31 AM, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Mathis wrote:
ActiveState Perl works very nicely (and the alternative is what,
vbscript?) on Windows.
No the alternative is Cygwin's Perl on Windows, of course. Oh, and
BTW, how much $$$ does ActiveSt
On Nov 7, 2007 9:31 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
- - - - - - cut stuff - - - - - - -
> No the alternative is Cygwin's Perl on Windows, of course. Oh, and BTW,
> how much $$$ does ActiveState Perl cost? And how much was Cygwin's again?
- - - - - - cut stuff - - - - - - -
This is to avoid people assum
DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
I once, like you, wondered why I couldn't just have one installation
of Perl or Python that works in either environment. Since I write
scripts, not code,
An aside? How is a Perl script not Perl code?!? Just wondering...
I assumed it was because it was just too hard to
Brian Mathis wrote:
On 11/6/07, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would you similarly complain that you already have del and dir and
not want rm and ls?
Personally I dislike ActiveState Perl. Things like setsid just don't
work and signal handling is not reliable (that may be better).
Brian Mathis wrote:
How about if you are writing a Windows application? What if you need
to manipulate the Registry or access Win32::OLE objects? You certainly
need AS Perl for that. It's not hard to imagine why you'd need a
Windows-centric version.
Then you are obviously and decidedly writing
On 06 November 2007 17:08, DePriest, Jason R. wrote:
> So, to help the OP's: use your perl installation as it was intended.
Actually, in order also to help the OP:
If all you really want is setup.exe to shut up and never ever ever bother
you again about cygwin perl - with all the risks that
On 11/6/07, Dave Korn <> wrote:
> On 06 November 2007 16:21, Brian Mathis wrote:
>
> > I must say with respect that if there are problems porting from
> > Activestate to linux/unix, that's a problem with the programmer who
> > wrote the code, not Perl. There's no reason that code that's general
>
On 06 November 2007 16:21, Brian Mathis wrote:
> I must say with respect that if there are problems porting from
> Activestate to linux/unix, that's a problem with the programmer who
> wrote the code, not Perl. There's no reason that code that's general
> in nature would not be portable.
Doe
On 11/6/07, Andrew DeFaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Would you similarly complain that you already have del and dir and not
> want rm and ls?
>
> Personally I dislike ActiveState Perl. Things like setsid just don't
> work and signal handling is not reliable (that may be better). Plus
> things
Michael Kairys wrote:
I've been using ActiveState Perl and Cygwin together for years and
have only one complaint: Setup keeps hassling me about dependencies
and I have to make sure always to uncheck Perl in the setu list (and
again in the dependency check) or I end up with two Perl
installatio
Michael Kairys wrote:
I wish Setup could recognize that I already have a Perl installation...
The two may be compatible at the Perl source level, for the most
part[*], but I doubt they're binary compatible. A lot of Perl modules
contain parts compiled from C and linked into the interpreter
On 11/5/07, Michael Kairys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been using ActiveState Perl and Cygwin together for years and have only
> one complaint: Setup keeps hassling me about dependencies and I have to make
> sure always to uncheck Perl in the setu list (and again in the dependency
> check) or
I've been using ActiveState Perl and Cygwin together for years and have only
one complaint: Setup keeps hassling me about dependencies and I have to make
sure always to uncheck Perl in the setu list (and again in the dependency
check) or I end up with two Perl installations, which I don't want.
37 matches
Mail list logo
