On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 11:59:31AM -0600, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> The current behavior makes trailing empty fields non-existent, and that's a
> bizarre and nonintuitive thing to have be a default; if your code relies on
> them being removed, then remove them explicitly, without expecting split to
>
I started to write:
Is there a reason for introducing an asymmetry, or
should this proposal read "... and /^/ equivalent to
/\A/ ..."?
but then I re-re-read perlre(1) and realized that that is the
current behavior already: this proposal is hammering out a little
bit of irregularity,
I can see the motivation for wanting this, but there's a cost I
haven't read anyone mentioning yet: this is abandoning backward
compatibility with a regex notation that has remained pretty
consistent in ed(1) and grep(1) and things inspired by them since I
guess the early '70s, when they were born
Is Vertical Tab used as whitespace in any current system?
I thought it was an artifact of the old line printers doing heavy
duty forms stuff, and went out with them.
-Bennett
PGP signature
> However, yesterday, some simple IO::Socket scripts failed to work on
> 5.6. I'm not addressing that here but my resulting thought is now
I hope you will be addressing them in the form of perlbug reports
so that the problems in 5.6 will be recorded and sorted out.
> Those should be kept short
>Sean M. Burke wrote:
>>
>> The current behavior makes trailing empty fields non-existent, and that's a
>> bizarre and nonintuitive thing to have be a default;
>Only to some people; and besides, it's well documented.
Well, Sean is right in that it is very bizarre to many people.
I know that whe
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 01:52:26PM -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> That's a good idea. I wish you'd have mentioned it while the RFC could
> still be changed. :)
Shouldn't be a problem; we don't have to stop having ideas now October first
is past, I hope.
--
There seems no plan because it is a
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 12:27:31PM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> I've voiced my objections and given complete and concrete evidence and
> examples of why this should not happen. I think that's enough.
I think that's enough, too. So, you'll be shutting up now, then?
--
>God Save the Queen!
And let
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 08:13:27PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > A Trademark on Perl Should be Acquired in Larry Wall's Name
>
> I thought one of the objects of the Perl 6 exercise was to make Perl
> bus-proof. Why don't we assign the trademark, and the code copyrigh
On Friday, October 06, 2000 11:23 AM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:50:06AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > I don't know it's affiliations
>
> You know that word "independent"? Should have been a give-away, but...
>
> > but I _seem_ to recall (such a "see
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:50:06AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> I don't know it's affiliations
You know that word "independent"? Should have been a give-away, but...
> but I _seem_ to recall (such a "seem" that it's about 10% away from a guess)
> that it's "owned" by either the independent perl m
11 matches
Mail list logo
