Re: where without type?

Carl MÃsak writes: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:38:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it's the cleanest solution, but it works. > > Just out of curiosity, what do you think would be a cleaner solution? > And why would one not want to implement such a solution instead?

Re: S04

Thank you for your fast and detailed reply. Larry Wall skribis 2005-01-29 11:08 (-0800): > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Juerd wrote: > : Can last/redo be used outside loops? (i.e. with if or given) > No, though of course what "loop" means is negotiable. Effectively, > anything that c

Re: S04

On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:59:40PM +0100, Juerd wrote: : Some questions after reading S04: : : : Can last/redo be used outside loops? (i.e. with if or given) No, though of course what "loop" means is negotiable. Effectively, anything that captures the appropriate control exceptions is a loop. B

S04

Some questions after reading S04: Can last/redo be used outside loops? (i.e. with if or given) Is a bare block still a loop? Can loop be used as a statement modifier? (say 'y' loop;) Can OUTER be stacked? ($OUTER::OUTER::_) TIA. Juerd

Re: [perl #33963] read and readline opcodes don't mix

Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > harmony:~/Projects/parrot ezekiel$ cat test.pir > .sub main @MAIN > $P0 = open "test.pir", "<" > $S0 = readline $P0 > print $S0 > $S1 = read $P0, 3 > print $S1 > print "\n" > .end > harmony:~/Projects/parrot ezekiel$ parrot

Re: lib/Make.pm obsolete?

Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there any reason to keep lib/Make.pm around? No, AFAIK. leo

Re: [perl #33962] readline returns one too many lines

Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:49:06 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Matt Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > The readline opcode returns too many lines. Compare the following pir >> > with `wc -l`. >> >> > unless file goto END

Re: where without type?

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:38:51 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it's the cleanest solution, but it works. Just out of curiosity, what do you think would be a cleaner solution? And why would one not want to implement such a solution instead? // Carl On Fri, 28 Jan 2005

Re: operator

[EMAIL PROTECTED] kirjoitti: Please, I have a question if exists in Perl somethink like keyword 'operator' in C++ ? That will exist in perl6. for example we can write in C++ : class A { A() { printf("Constructor of object class A\n"); } ~A() { printf("Destructor of object class A\n"); } }; A &opera

operator

Please, I have a question if exists in Perl somethink like keyword 'operator' in C++ ? for example we can write in C++ : class A { A() { printf("Constructor of object class A\n"); } ~A() { printf("Destructor of object class A\n"); } }; A &operator + (A &a1, A &a2) { printf("Addition\n"); } A &ope