It's time for the XML vs POD discussion to end. The RFCs are in
limbo now, and this conversation is serving no visible purpose.
Thanks,
Nat
> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRL> =item 2. Empty trailing fields are currently suppressed (although a
PRL> -1 as the third argument disables this). I suggest that empty trailing
PRL> fields be retained by default.
Extremely useful, I rely on this. It makes non-
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> For the internals, though...
DS> This would be very useful, and it's a feature I'd really like to implement.
DS> Basically you're asking for pre-computed, indirect, shared hash keys. This
DS> sounds like a Good Plan to me.
Why precomp
On 5 Oct 2000, at 13:44, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 06:19 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> >On 2 Oct 2000, at 16:14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > > I'll have to go pick that up on Thursday and add it to the Darned Big Pile
> > > of books I need to read.
> >
> >Funny how everyone seems to hav
On 2 Oct 2000, at 16:14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:34 PM 9/29/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >
> > > I've no experience with UML, though. Got a pointer to a quick overview?
> >
> >Without a doubt, "UML Distilled" is the bible of the genre.
>
> I'll have to go pick that
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> bits of both systems so it all can be wedged into perl. I'd really
DS> like to incorporate the good bits of VMS' async I/O and event
DS> handling into perl, for example.
hear! hear! as the author/maintainer of the event loop and
as
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 11:47:46AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE.
At 06:40 PM 10/5/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 01:38:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Perl 6 is going to be the community's rewrite. His design to start, but
> > the community's rewrite. (The alternative is to have the thing be *my*
> > rewrite, and I don't think we w
At 11:08 AM 10/5/00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>>
>> > Peter Scott wrote:
>> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
>> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
At 07:51 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>On 5 Oct 2000, at 13:44, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 06:19 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > >On 2 Oct 2000, at 16:14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'll have to go pick that up on Thursday and add it to the Darned
> Big Pile
> > > >
At 01:38 PM 10/5/00 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, John Porter wrote:
>
> > Peter Scott wrote:
> > > the idea is to be an extension of Larry's creative thinking
> > > process. Neither of us is deciding what goes into Perl 6, and
> neither is
> > > the community - I hope. Larry
Philip Newton wrote:
> If the pod (or whatever) is in a
> separate file, this advantage is lost.
Of course; I'd *never* say that there should be NO documentation
in the perl code file. That would be absurd.
--
John Porter
By pressing down a special key It plays a little melody
John Porter wrote:
>
> RFCs like "330: Global dynamic variables should remain the
> default" should not need to be written! (No disrespect to you,
> Nate.)
None taken; I actually agree. Unfortunately, I thought that -strict did
nowhere near enough analysis of scoping issues besides the initial
s
At 06:19 PM 10/5/00 +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2000, at 16:14, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > At 04:34 PM 9/29/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've no experience with UML, though. Got a pointer to a quick overview?
> > >
> > >Without a doubt, "UML Distil
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
>
> > I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> > would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> > is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
> > docum
On 4 Oct 2000, at 14:06, John Porter wrote:
> I am of the opinion that any documentation which requires, or at least
> would significantly benefit from, the use of something heavy like SGML
> is best done OUTSIDE THE CODE. There's no reason you can't have
> document files accompanying the perl
16 matches
Mail list logo
