[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) wrote on 22.01.02 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A case that (in a slightly different context) recently came up on
> > alt.usage.german (I don't remember if this particular
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 25.04.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you have the double-indirect, the window of vulnerability is smaller,
> but it's still there if you're running multithreaded.
Looks zero-sized to me. One memory write, let the garbage collector
collect the old vt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 12.04.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 12:16 AM 4/13/2001 +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 11.04.01 in
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > *) All private routines
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 11.04.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> *) All private routines have #defines to give them a _Perl_ prefix
> *) All private data have #defines to give them a _PL_ prefix
IIRC, ISO C says you cannot have /^_[A-Z_][A-Za-z_0-9]*$/. That's reserved
for the st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 12.04.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (No, I don't know why unaligned access to 8-bit data is faster, but there
> you go)
How *do* you unalign 8-bit data?!
MfG Kai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) wrote on 26.03.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Oh, and you think Perl is more English than German?
In fact, I've come up with the same idea independently. Except I'd go a
bit further and claim that only a native English speaker could possibly
come up with the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Grove) wrote on 12.01.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> tangent: {
> BTW, on debian.org, there's an essay that says that they are currently
> "using" the linux kernel until a totally GNU one is created. I've been
> doing some homework while watching these posts. (Which is al
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote on 15.12.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 12:13:01PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > IMHO, the first thing we need to design and code is the API and runtime
> > library, since everything else builds on top of that, and we can design
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Olekshy) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What if we implemented something like the following?
Seems that the basic unwinder is
> except { ... } => catch { ... }
and everything else can be written in terms of this:
> catch { ... }
except { 1 } =>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Wiger) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'd say, if the variable exists, interpolate it. If not, print it as
> > it stands.
>
> I initially was thinking this too, but there's a major problem:
>
>print "Your stuff is: @stuff\n";
>
> I want this to *alw
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Scott Duff) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You're right, there should be just one date/time routine. But it is
> *extremely* difficult to incorporate time zones in a portable fashion.
> They change at legislative whim. But if utcdate() (or whatever we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > All variables should be C<$x>. They should behave appropriately
> > according to their object types and methods.
>
> No thanks. I frequently use variables $foo, @foo, and %foo at the same
> time when they contain th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * you misunderstand the purpose of $ and @, which is to indicate
>singular vs plural.
Yes. That's one of the things that's wrong with it - maybe the biggest of
all.
It's one of the things that require con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Torkington) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > Why is it silly? Hashes and arrays are *conceptually* very similar
> > (even if they are extremely different implementation-wise).
>
> If that were the case, I think students would h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The ultimate target of a program's source code is the *programmer*.
True.
> Programmers, being people (well, more or less... :), work best with symbols
> and rich context.
This particular programmer *hates* what Per
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> At 06:04 PM 8/15/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > >Generality good.
> > >
> > > For many things, yes. For computers, say. For people, no. Generality
> > > bad. Specificity and specialization go
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Cozens) wrote on 15.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> iii) Never assume bytes.
Beware of breaking binary patching. That would be a very bad thing.
Silly example not entirely unlike code I've actually seen:
open B, "< /tmp/netscape.old";
$/ = undef;
$netscape = ;
cl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jarkko Hietaniemi) wrote on 13.08.00 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 02:14:24PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > Why do all those acts have to be performed to do an open?
>
> I must not be explaining myself very well... To do an open() from
> Perl the user
18 matches
Mail list logo
