Brian McCauley wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
... I'd keep the "for which"
even if some people consider such strict English grammar to be
affected.
I guess it reads better if using commas:
The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subro
Geoffrey Young wrote:
I know, as a newbie to the list,
welcome.
Thanks.
in general, this list is very welcoming to newbies. so, please don't
take what I'm about to say as being directed toward you...
['elements of style' excerpts snipped]
you know, if y'all spent less time squibbling over
I know, as a newbie to the list,
welcome.
in general, this list is very welcoming to newbies. so, please don't take
what I'm about to say as being directed toward you...
['elements of style' excerpts snipped]
you know, if y'all spent less time squibbling over minor grammatical points,
and i
(sorry Brian, this was supposed to go to the list... is there any plan
to fix the reply-to header on this list?)
Brian McCauley wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
... I'd keep the "for which"
even if some people consider such strict English grammar to
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >... I'd keep the "for which"
> > even if some people consider such strict English grammar to be
> > affected.
>
> I guess it reads better if using commas:
>
> The easiest and the fastest way to solve the nested subrou
Following our discussion of what kind 'our'-declared vars are, it's
interesting that today on p5p there is this thread where all kind of
/(package|file) scope (lexical)? variable/ are discussed.
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2003-10/msg00912.html
___
Brian McCauley wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
[...] this is your document so I shall go along with your preferences.
It's not really mine, I just happen to maintain it. From the previous
discussion it seems that those who cared agreed that it's better to
explicitly declare var
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian McCauley wrote:
> > Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>- move the perl4 lib solution to the perl_reference.pod
> > Will do when I get round to that bit. I still think a mention of it
> > is needed in porting.pod to warn people away from
Brian McCauley wrote:
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
- move the perl4 lib solution to the perl_reference.pod
Will do when I get round to that bit. I still think a mention of it
is needed in porting.pod to warn people away from it. If you disagree
simply delete the offending paragraph
Stas Bekman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - move the perl4 lib solution to the perl_reference.pod
Will do when I get round to that bit. I still think a mention of it
is needed in porting.pod to warn people away from it. If you disagree
simply delete the offending paragraph.
> - suggest turning
10 matches
Mail list logo