o makes
the ol' perl5
open FH, "|/usr/bin/foo";
make a lot more sense. Using something like
open "p", "/usr/bin/foo";
just wouldn't have the same ring to it. Aside from which, it gets even worse
when you consider how you would have to ch
> > While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
> >open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
> >while () {
> > print $_;
> >}
> > to dump the HTML for the main page of www.perl.org to get
> dumped to stdout.
>
> Well, this seems innocent enough, but how far
> >The same is true for anything... Sometimes a minimalist approach
> >is the right way to do it... The problem is to make sure when
> >using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small...
> I think the more important thing is to not add completely redundant
> features without a really
> 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 Perl Slogan is "There's More Than One Way
> to Do
> > Some arguments for XML:
> >
> > - Done right, it could be easier to write and maintain
> Pod is already "done right", and it's already spectacularly
> easy to write and maintain. XML is a hammer in search of nail.
Actually, a better analogy would be a its a sledge hammer
in search of a fin
Apologies if these comments have already been noted...
> my $PI : constant = 3.1415926;
> my @FIB : constant = (1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21);
> my %ENG_ERRORS : constant = (E_UNDEF=>'undefined', E_FAILED=>'failed');
>
> Constants can be lexically or globally scoped (or any other new scoping
> lev
