I think this is one of many steps in the right direction. Actually, I have a
class item defined in my fork as:
class foo
reserve bar scalar;
member bar {
default(bar) = '1';
set(bar) = {some code};
get(bar) = {some code};
ensure(bar) = {some code};
confirm(bar) = {some co
On Monday 30 July 2001 17:09, Me wrote:
> > 2. Format (quick to read, quick to write docs that link together;
> > 2 paragraph intro that becomes a daily tip)
>
> Are thinking of making a wiki a key part of the overall picture?
If ya do, make it understand POD and not the normal wikiyikky markup g
This makes no sense. ?: tests a boolean value, which is either true or false.
There is no ternary state for a boolean value. True/False, Yes/No, On/Off,
1/0. Are you suggesting Yes/No/Maybe? Or are you redefining True and False?
Doesn't matter. What you're asking has no counterpart in boolean l
Oh boo hoo. Might I suggest a good introductory Perl book?
p
On Saturday 28 July 2001 12:32, raptor wrote:
> I've/m never used/ing "elseif" ( i hate it :") from the time I have to
> edit a perl script of other person that had 25 pages non-stop if-elsif
> sequence) ... never mind there is two c
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:31:22PM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
> > We can have a huge thread, just like before, but until we see any kind
> > of update from Larry as to if he has changed his mind it is all a bit
> > pointless.
>
> For what it's worth, I like it.
>
> > > Does anyone else see a prob
> > Well, I *have* been following the discussion. And to me, it looks indeed
> > like you, Simon, were indeed attacking ME on non-technical grounds.
> > Vijay just jumped in for him, like a lioness trying to protect her
> > kittens.
>
> Which he does from time to time, as do most of us, myself lik
> -Original Message-
> From: Bart Lateur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 10:48 AM
> To: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Social Reform
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 08:54:13 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S.
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 05:19:26PM -0700, Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> > I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking
> a person", not
> > Vijay.
>
> You are wrong. Go back through the archives. Vijay has posted four
> messages: two of which are critical of Perl, two of which a
> If you have not been following this thread, then maybe that is
> the reason for
> the confused-sounding nature of your email.
>
> I would say Simon was the one "ignoring an issue and attacking a
> person", not
> Vijay. I think Vijay was the one pointing out that this person ("Me") was
> contrib
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:46 AM
> To: Vijay Singh
> Cc: Me; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Multi-dimensional arrays and relational db data
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 10:13:28PM -0800, Vijay Singh wrote:
> > Why
> Previously, on St. Elsewhere...
>
> Simon(e) writes...
> > But of course, I'm sure you already know what makes
> > good language design, because otherwise you wouldn't
> > be mouthing off in here...
>
> Why is it that "Me" is *mouthing off*, but you're not? Why is that?
> What makes you so *spec
> Perl is far more practical than experimental.
Not at the moment. That's the problem.
(Note the subtle subject change back to its original intent.)
p
> -Original Message-
> From: Vijay Singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Python...
>
>
>
> Python? Didn't know you were so into tuples...
>
> I thought your head would be turned by Ruby ;-)
It is
> "Where's the likes of David Grove when you need one?"
I don't even know what you're talking about.
Leave me alone. I'm learning Python...
again.
p
> David Grove writes:
> : > That's not how I see it. The filehandle is naturally true if it
> : > succeeds. It's the undef value that wants to have more information.
> : > In fact, you could view $! as a poor-man's way of extracting the error
>
> That's not how I see it. The filehandle is naturally true if it
> succeeds. It's the undef value that wants to have more information.
> In fact, you could view $! as a poor-man's way of extracting the error
> that was attached to the last undef.
If I were wealthy enough in time and patience t
> > What is Camel4 going to look like for perl 6? What is going to
> be required
> > knowledge for perl6. Let's just start by looking at Apoc2. To
> use perl,
> > you'll have to know Unicode, you'll have to know OO, you'll have to
> > understand references. Those are three very technical conce
16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> > Dave Storrs writes:
> > > < SARCASM=EXTREME>
> >
> > Everyone, please try to stop the downhill descent of the conversation.
> > This is not just Dave, but others in the thread too.
>
> For the rec
> On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > For me, it's the bare minimum amount of Perl you must *use* to
> be productive
> > that I see increasing in our plans and discussions. I'm afraid of Perl
> > turning into a verbose monstrosity to please verbo
> --- Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, didn't Larry tell you? We're making perl's parser locale-aware so
> > it uses the local language to determine what the keywords are.
> > I thought that was in the list of things you'd need to take into
> > account when you wrote the parser...
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that, or we're giving the impression that
> it's increasing. Man
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 04:50:17PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Pardon my indelicacy, but - Screw how it looks in Perl5.
>
> I'm not telling you how it *looks* in Perl 5, I'm telling you (in Perl 5
> terms) what it will *mean*.
nice save
p
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:25:51PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > There must be some reason why a language like Sather isn't more popular.
> > I think that iters are part of the problem.
>
> That smacks of the Politician's Syllogism:
> Something is wrong.
> This is something.
> Theref
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 6:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: On Vacation
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : And about the whole
> throwing-out-baby-in-one-grand-bathwater-disposa
> Well, I think we should take a step back and answer a few key questions:
>
> 1. Do we want to be able to use Perl 5 modules in a
>Perl 6 program (without conversion)?
For a while, quite possibly, I'd say.
When 5.6 came out, I was in module hell, trying to get 5.005 modules to
compi
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Torkington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 10:20 AM
> To: Chaim Frenkel
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: perl5 to perl6
>
>
> Chaim Frenkel writes:
> > Those are all major typo inducing changes.
> >
> > You'll need alternat
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:00:13PM +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:49:30PM -0700, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > We need to keep syntactic compatibility, which means we need
> to keep the
> > > ability for perl6 to USE PERL5.
> >
> > I think you're in violent agreemen
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
> > and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
> ActiveState and SuSE.
>
> "a complete, barefaced lie".
To be a lie, it must be pu
> -Original Message-
> From: Adam Turoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: David Goehrig
> Cc: Larry Wall; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 12:13:13PM -0700, David Goehrig wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>
> > If you talk that way, people are going to start believing it.
> [snip]
>
> Some of us are are talking that way because we already
> beleive it. You can't make the transition from Attic
> Greek to Koine without c
> Perl 5 is far from stagnant--please don't bend the truth to fit your
> points. My impression is that there's quite a bit more constructive
> activity on p5p than there was a year ago.
I've stopped paying attention to P5P except for keeping an eye on the
possibility of a new surprise upgrade fr
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: Larry Wall
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 11:55:36AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> > If you talk that way, peop
> Nathan Wiger writes:
> : Maybe the name "Perl" should be dropped altogether?
>
> No. The Schemers had to do a name change because the Lisp name had
> pretty much already been ruined by divergence.
>
> : (Granted, that's not what I'd prefer, but the changes are getting
> : rather massive and ar
Incompatible continuity. Sounds like Microsoft marketing.
"We're strongly considering keeping compatibility, and rejecting it wherever
we can insert something that looks momentarily cool. Of course your Perl 5
programs will still work, as long as you convert them to Perl 6. We'll have
a parser th
I've been wondering for quite some time whether we were creating a Perl for
the purpose of cleaning up the ridiculously rigged Perl 5 internals, or
creating a Perl for the simple enjoyment of creating a new programming
language. Certainly, recent discussions would point to the latter; as we
move f
> -Original Message-
> From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:58 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
>
>
> Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > : do you think conflating @ and % would be a perl6 design win?
> >
> > No
> Nope, I still think most ordinary people want different operators for
> strings than for numbers. Dictionaries and calculators have very
> different interfaces in the real world, and it's false economy to
> overgeneralize. Witness the travails of people trying to use
> cell phones to type mess
/me likes. /me likes a lot.
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Hartnoll [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2 - concerns : new mascot?
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 8:01 AM
> To: Dave Mitchell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The 5% solution
>
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 10:19:10AM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > to be such that the writing of the
> As my Con Law professor was fond of saying, "Horse hooey!"*
Camel cookies.
;-)
> These types of issues are not nearly so clear cut as many company's
> would have people believe. E.g., O'Reilly is book publisher that
> engages in the business of publishing and selling books for a
> profit. T
"Core Perl" is probably trademarked to Sun Microsystems. ;-)
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: John L. Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 1:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2
> [...] subject to ethnic
> cleansing. Culture wars arise spontaneously, but that should not deter
> us from enabling people to build new cultures. [...]
Does that mean we can nuke Redmond and move on to reality in corporate IS
now?
};P
> -Original Message-
> From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: what I meant about hungarian notation
>
>
> David Grove wrote:
> > $ is a singularity, @ is a multiplicity
/me ponders the use of a cat in that context... Furball?
David T. Grove
Blue Square Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Cozens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 10:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2 -
> >An object of type "abstracted reference to a chair" is _NOT_ an object of
> >type "numeric or string that magicly switches between as needed"
>
> So what you're really saying is that references aren't really scalars,
> but their own type. Thus they need their own prefix.
>
> But we've sort of r
EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apoc2 - concerns : new mascot?
>
>
> On Wed, 9 May 2001 10:24:26 -0400, David Grove wrote:
>
> >I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
> >not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse
> but has a
&g
>
> > sane indentation by making it part of the language, Perl is a
> > language that enforces a dialect of hungarian notation by making
> > its variable decorations an intrinsic part of the language.
>
> But $, @, and % indicate data organization, not type...
Actually they do show "type", thoug
> Hungarian notation is any of a variety of standards for organizing
> a computer program by selecting a schema for naming your variables
> so that their type is readily available to someone familiar with
> the notation.
I used to request hungarian notation from programmers who worked for me,
unt
Probably not if it had scales, webbed feet, a hookbill, antennae, a furry
coontail, and udders. Otherwise, if it looks like a camel at all, it's
considered a trademark violation. I remember someone (whether at O'Reilly or
not I don't remember) saying that, even if it looks like a horse but has a
h
> -Original Message-
> From: Jarkko Hietaniemi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:26 PM
> To: David Grove
> Cc: Perl 6 Language Mailing List
> Subject: Re: .NET
>
>
> (still waiting
> > for "something original for a change&
> > am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of
> > Perl 6 and the .NET platform.
> > . . . many things in .NET have been discussed similarly here.
>
> That's because .NET attempts to address real-world issues.
> The goals of .NET are not evil in and of themselves, you know.
I've been recently looking over the specification for C# and the .NET
platform (and falling for very little of the verbage: almost every line of
the first chapter of book I'm reading contains at least one oxymoron), and
am seeing some similarities between some of the proposed goals of Perl 6 and
t
Given that Perl 5 internals post 5.004 caused the need for a rewrite
anyway, I'd imagine that this would be a particularly horrid idea. The
Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the vast
majority using it at all. Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
completely rej
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Whipp wrote:
> > > A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to
program
> > > in than some that do.
> >
> > The obvious reply is: "There's more than one way to do it"
>
> To which the obvious reply is:
>
> 'Although the P
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:42:23AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> > Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq
> away
> > from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
>
I tried to comment on "apocalypse" in Larry's most likely sense, but there
was a mail flub (now corrected).
Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away
from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
revealing that which was previously unseen or
> OK, before this *completely* heads into the direction of advocacy,
which
> it's dangerous close to anyway, you need to qualify that.
Uh, have you followed this thread? It's nothing but another perlbashing
session by a verbosity monger who can't handle $.
"David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Helton, Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please CC Otto in all replies concerning this topic. I want to make
> sure
> > he
> > reads how wrong he is about Per
"Helton, Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please CC Otto in all replies concerning this topic. I want to make
sure
> he
> reads how wrong he is about Perl and its readability and I think Simon
> sums it
> up perfectly here.
Give the braindead no head, Brandon. I've recently come acr
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:00:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > So I ask you - *why* make an artificial deadline? What's the point?
>
> Do you currently believe we're all sufficiently focused on getting the
> job done? I ask merely for informati
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
> >exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
> >language" belching up un
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
"John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I actually have a good name...
>
> shakedown (as in cruise, matches CPANTS)
I thought cruise got famous because you couldn't CPANTS.
> Personally I would want to pull away from reliance on any corporation
(ask
> Dave Grove why)
Please don't.
"H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
> >
> > Likewise. What's wrong w
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > > As an active non-sm
> [subject]: "It's funny. Laugh."
I know. I was having fun. We haven't had a lurktrollmuffin in here before
and it was a good diversion from the drollery of waiting...
'Sides, I happen to _like_ defending Perl from nonsensicals, especially
particularly abusive ones.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTEC
yaphet jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Feeding the troll:
>
> careful with the troll talk: remember, your god's favorite book
> is the "lord of the rings"...chock full of trolls...and hobbits, too!
>
> >> => example 2: ruby
> >> => now more popular than python in its native japan
yaphet jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this is completely false when applied to real programming languages.
Please disclose what language you represent.
> => example 1: php
> => relatively easy to learn
> . retains basic perl syntax
> . less cryptic (but more verbose)
>
Nick, make a decision. As for myself, I won't sit back and watch this.
yaphet jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> despite all "cyber" appearances to the contrary, i'm one of you - but
who?
I've been looking back through my archives trying to figure out who you
are. You are certainly not someon
yaphet jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
> >>Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
> >>are deeply eng
>
http://news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?t
> ag=ltnc
I wish I could think of something commensurate to say. I don't think I've
ever seen this much cockamamey horseradish on a single sheet of
cyberpaper. The most absurd part of it is that the bastages actually
Steve Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or
whatever
> > its replacement is?
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Simply put (and paraphrastically, so don't nitpick, anyone), XS is using a
funk
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
>
> >Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on
these...
> >But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl
programmers...
>
> I've skipped pretty much all this thread so fa
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:17 PM 2/5/2001 -0200, Branden wrote:
> > > I think that, if you want this behavior, a module that implements
it
> > > would be just fine. (Why muck with "use"?) To use a module name
> > > that seems like it could fit this purpose:
> > >
> >
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > John Porter wrote:
> > > But you need to remember it anyway, so remembering it for time() is
> > > no added burden.
> >
> > Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have changed is an "added
burden"
> > over remembering that $x
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected
> desire.
> What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there,
what
> kind of signature it has, whether file Bar will be there, what kind of
> format it has,
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "David Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >This is correct. I left a few months after the release of 5.005. As
for
> >why Sarathy keeps insisting that we never worked there at the same
time, I
&g
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I either was misinformed or misremembered a conversation
> from last Fall. Sarathy pointed out to me that David
> Grove not only was not working at ActiveState when 5.6.0
> came out, Sarathy does not think that David was w
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then there is no point in working with licenses at all. If licenses
will
> > not be enforced through litigation and our desires for the Perl
language
> > ca
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please make sense if you are going to address me in the future, or
simply
> don't bother addressing me at all. Thanks,
Following the thread(s), in order for this working group to make sense,
there must be a reason to look at our licenses. We have fou
Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 22.39 -0500 01.14.2001, David Grove wrote:
> >I think that "charter" would be more palatable than "manifesto",
although
> >I won't lose the sentiment in semantics. I've been thinking the same
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You may have a good point here. Perhaps we want a Perl Manifesto that
> lays out our base goals in plain English, separate from any licensing
> scheme. At the least, it could serve as documentation for *why* Perl
is
> dual-licensed, since this keep
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Speaking personally the Perl 5.6.0 disaster (and I
> consider it no less) has made me a lot more cynical
> about Perl and willing to look at switching languages.
> I do not currently know whether I will make the Perl 5
> to Perl 6 transition...
I'd
Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
> > other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
> > have, the ability
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> > No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard
> distribution.
>
> I see.
>
> I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
> actually kept.
I'll retract partially. The precise reference I had in mind was in fact on
the GNU site linked from Debian.org, my mistake, although I've definitely
seen overwhelming GNUism among Debians. Here is a quick question as I
asked it on UnderNET and got an immediate and definite response (I'm
eapoe):
u
> You know having you not have a clue who you are talking to
> is getting really annoying. Hello David, my name is Ben
> Tilly. I am the guy who flamed Tom Christiansen on p5p
[...]
> In any case if you want action on that it is better to
> start by saying that and not take threads that
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I
> >just learned from the GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that
> >perl ~is~ legally defined as an operating system.
>
> Defined by who? I am curious her
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses al
I have an idea. Send that japanese to Larry and have him translate it.
However he translates it, it's official.
p
Jeff Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
> > > say we start with this number
> > > 123,456,789
> > >
> > > one
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
> > otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
> > 'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten'
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Liceses. Bletch.
> Don't blame the licenses, blame the copyright law that makes them an
> unfortunate necessity in many cases.
And the thieves who steal the intellectual property and claim it as their
own turf in the first place.
What are we ta
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> >
> > Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> I think you misunderstand. I think it should be very easy to *use* a
> hypothetical Pythonish modul
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:29 PM 12/18/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
>
> >Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> > >
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
[snip]
> > _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_ _purposes_,
>
> Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world? You're
> sounding almost
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the
usefulness
> of
>
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:50 -0700 (MST), Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> >I think the problems with this that were raised in the past are:
> > * parsing partial source
> > * does this mean that the parser has to reparse the whole sourcefile
> > ever
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
issue.
> I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
Pythonish
> module.
I do.
That's the problem. This is a nearly ubiquitously desired objective
(writing th
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That sounds too complex for what seems like a more simple solution.
When
> > you say "turn simple 'languages' into perl", that's what Dan's told
me is
> > my source filter.
>
> Correct. perl-byacc is a source filter. It takes in yacc source an
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> > Ok, my C's rather rusty, but are we interested in parsing that?
>
> Yes. I've heard people talk about a C frontend. Will it ever see the
> light? I don'
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
