> > I didn't put UTF-8 in on purpose, because I'd just as soon not deal with it
> > internally. Variable length character data's a pain in the butt, and if we
> > can avoid having the internals deal with it except as a source that gets
> > converted to UTF-32, that's fine with me.
>
> I agree
On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 05:01:03AM +1100, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Really? Are lexicals in the sub visible in the post handler?
>
> No. Only the original arguments and the return value.
>
>> (Of course I realize *F does not illustrate this...)
>
> Exactly. ;-)
>
> Actually, I do agr
Hi,
I have problem with Perl Threading on Linux.
I compiled 5.6 on Linux and trying to create threads.
Sample program:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
#file : test.pl
use Thread;
$thr = new Thread \&foo;
sub foo()
{
print "hi";
}
==
$./test.pl
Error: No threads in this perl at ./t
David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> Do you agree that they shouldn't get tacked on until execution passes their
> definition, unlike END blocks which get appended when they are parsed?
Yes, absolutely; that is an important point.
END blocks are different because there is only ever one activation record
f
Branden foobar wrote:
> I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
> lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as default, either by the language
> default, or by a pragma, as `use scope "subs"; ', as it's proposed in RFC
> 64.
> If that's the case, I wonder how closures w
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Eh? I thought PPM was simply "perl -MCPAN -e install" for Windows users,
> pointed to a set of modules which have XS content that they'd had to fiddle
> with to port to Win32.
Not by far. It is a replacment for CPAN that builds and
maintains its own local databas
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> At 11:57 AM 2/8/2001 +0100, Edwin Steiner wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > At 04:02 PM 2/7/2001 +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > > > >Please see my previous post on the subject. As I pointed there,
> > > > implementing
> > > > > >|| and && like that breaks short-circu
On Wednesday 31 December 1969 18:59, Branden wrote:
> Yes. Packaging is what's important. I actually expect to not have to
install
> the `par' and have perl6's magic filehandles decompress a file from the
> package `on-the-fly'. I think zip is the way to go! Is there any
> platform/license or an
At 05:49 PM 2/8/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
>Peter Scott wrote:
> > Eh? I thought PPM was simply "perl -MCPAN -e install" for Windows users,
> > pointed to a set of modules which have XS content that they'd had to
>fiddle
> > with to port to Win32.
> >
>
>Sorry for the mistake... I've never actual
Peter Scott wrote:
> Eh? I thought PPM was simply "perl -MCPAN -e install" for Windows users,
> pointed to a set of modules which have XS content that they'd had to
fiddle
> with to port to Win32.
>
Sorry for the mistake... I've never actually used PPM, only read about it in
the web. I guess the
At 05:00 PM 2/8/01 -0200, Branden wrote:
>I wrote:
> > I think zip is the way to go! Is there any
> > platform/license or any other restricting issues we should care about zip?
> > Is it ported to all platforms Perl currently runs on? Is there a Perl
>module
> > for handling zips?
>
>Aren't we re-
I'm writing a PDD on the subject, as suggested by Dan, and I intend to post
it by tomorrow. In the lack of a better list, I think we stick
with -language. If someone can suggest a better one, please do it.
- Branden
I wrote:
> I think zip is the way to go! Is there any
> platform/license or any other restricting issues we should care about zip?
> Is it ported to all platforms Perl currently runs on? Is there a Perl
module
> for handling zips?
Aren't we re-inventing the wheel here? It strikes me now that Act
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:58 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >\zip's better in that it allows easy random access to a compressed file,
> >[without having to compress everything else first] but worse for the
> >same reason because you don't get as good a compression ratio by
> >compres
At 05:49 PM 2/8/2001 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:31:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not unless you strip the bytecode. I want to optionally package the source
> > in the bytecode, since otherwise you can't do some optimizations after the
> > fact on the generate
At 05:58 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 05:39 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > >Do we really want to use tar format (over say cpio) as tar rounds files
> > >up to 512 block boundaries, and has some arbitr
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:41:34PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:39 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >Do we really want to use tar format (over say cpio) as tar rounds files
> >up to 512 block boundaries, and has some arbitrary restrictions on filename
> >lengths in the headers?
>
At 11:57 AM 2/8/2001 +0100, Edwin Steiner wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 04:02 PM 2/7/2001 +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > > >Please see my previous post on the subject. As I pointed there,
> > > implementing
> > > > >|| and && like that breaks short-circuits.
> > > >
> > > > No, it doesn't
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 05:39:01PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> Do we really want to use tar format (over say cpio) as tar rounds files
> up to 512 block boundaries, and has some arbitrary restrictions on filename
> lengths in the headers?
First cut will be tar. Why? Its simple, its common, a
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:31:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Not unless you strip the bytecode. I want to optionally package the source
> in the bytecode, since otherwise you can't do some optimizations after the
> fact on the generated bytecode stream.
Clever dog!
> > 2) You have to m
At 05:39 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > This is an excellent reason, and one I hadn't considered. I withdraw any
> > objections. Care to put together a PDD on how it should be handled?
> > (Including Archive::Tar as part
At 12:12 PM 2/8/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 01:24:27PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 06:12 PM 2/7/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > >But I don't like the thought of going in and out of a lot of generic
> > >routines for
> > >
> > >$a = 3;
> > >$a += 2;
> >
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:26:59PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> This is an excellent reason, and one I hadn't considered. I withdraw any
> objections. Care to put together a PDD on how it should be handled?
> (Including Archive::Tar as part of the base perl distribution's not
> inappropriate, a
At 02:43 PM 2/8/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better off
>if
> > we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
> > Seems easier to ship that way than as an archive of stuff. (We can, if
At 11:52 AM 2/8/2001 +, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:21:17AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better
> off if
> > we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
>
>Sure, except...
>
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:18:14PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
> lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as default, either by the language
> default, or by a pragma, as `use scope "subs"; ', as it's proposed in RFC
> 64.
I believe t
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 11:21:17AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better off if
> we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
Sure, except...
1) You lose your readable source code (discussions of B::Depar
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> I'm not sure this is all necessary. Wouldn't we be reasonably better off
if
> we instead just shipped off bytecode compiled versions of the scripts?
> Seems easier to ship that way than as an archive of stuff. (We can, if its
> deemed useful, define the bytecode format in a
At 01:44 PM 2/8/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
>Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:07:18PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> > > The issue is actually not auto-downloading modules and their
>prerequisites,
> > > but actually packaging several scripts and modules in one file, so as
>Java's
>
I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as default, either by the language
default, or by a pragma, as `use scope "subs"; ', as it's proposed in RFC
64.
If that's the case, I wonder how closures will be done, since having
lexica
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:07:18PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> > The issue is actually not auto-downloading modules and their
prerequisites,
> > but actually packaging several scripts and modules in one file, so as
Java's
> > jar do. I think supporting this would be neat.
>
Bart Lateur wrote:
> The idea is inspired, not just by the existing BEGIN and END blocks
> syntax, but also by the fact that in 5.6.0, you can put a sub definition
> inside another sub. You can nest them. The effect is that nested sub is
> only visible from within the outer sub. That seems rather
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 12:07:18PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> The issue is actually not auto-downloading modules and their prerequisites,
> but actually packaging several scripts and modules in one file, so as Java's
> jar do. I think supporting this would be neat.
I thought about making a "par" uti
Michael G Schwern wrote:
>
> Oddly enough, Perl does handle this... mostly. The CPAN shell can
> automatically download and install prerequisites for modules, provided
> the module explicitly declares the prereqs. Class::DBI ultimately
> needs something like 9 other CPAN modules, which would be
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 08:53:07AM -, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
> Branden wrote:
> >When I download a module from Internet, say module Foo, then I install
> >it and try to use it, it promptly breaks when it tries to `use Bar'
> >and sees that Bar is not installed on my system. So I have to g
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 01:24:27PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 06:12 PM 2/7/2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >But I don't like the thought of going in and out of a lot of generic
> >routines for
> >
> >$a = 3;
> >$a += 2;
> >
> >when the integer scalar ought to know what the inside of anot
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:41:32 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>[on the other hand, I'll argue the other side that
>
>{
> my $flag
> open FOO, " ...
>}
>post {
> close FOO if $flag;
>}
>
>is clearer because the tidy up doesn't visually get in the way of the flow
>of what you're doing, and you can s
On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 10:59:00PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> > on the other hand, I'll argue the other side that
> >
> > {
> > my $flag
> > open FOO, " > ...
> > }
> > post {
> > close FOO if $flag;
> > }
> >
> > is clearer because the tidy up doesn't visu
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:02 PM 2/7/2001 +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > >Please see my previous post on the subject. As I pointed there,
> > implementing
> > > >|| and && like that breaks short-circuits.
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. Just because you pass in two PMCs doesn't mean that they
>
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 08:53:07AM -, Filipe Brandenburger wrote:
> The solution I propose to this problem is borrowed (copied) from what Java
> did in version 1.1 with jars (did wrong, of course), and somewhat like
> RedHat's rpms. What I suggest is having a kind of archive that would be li
Branden wrote:
>When I download a module from Internet, say module Foo, then I install
>it and try to use it, it promptly breaks when it tries to `use Bar'
>and sees that Bar is not installed on my system. So I have to go on
>to Internet again, find Bar, install it, so on, until I find Bar needs
41 matches
Mail list logo
