Trey Harris writes:
> In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Smylers writes:
>
> > Trey Harris writes: T
> >
> > > I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules
> > > floating around that required you to do "no strict" of various
> > > flavors in order to use them.
> >
> > Real
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Smylers writes:
Trey Harris writes:
I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules
floating around that required you to do "no strict" of various flavors
in order to use them.
Really? How?
I wrote imprecisely. Not to "use" them in the
Trey Harris writes:
> In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
>
> > The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always "No
> > library designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast
> > or strict my program has to run." Whatever B&D you do in the
> > privacy
chromatic wrote:
jesse wrote:
> Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of "don't let
> people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules"
> but a matter of "perl should always give you enough rope to turn off any
> stricture imposed on you by externa
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:43:04PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:09, jesse wrote:
>
> > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "person writing the
> > program" and "person writing the libraries." In fact, I've _gotta_
> > be. I'd like to be able to put my str
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:04:45PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:48, jesse wrote:
>
> > Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of "don't let
> > people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules"
> > but a matter of "per
Trey Harris wrote:
I read it as "yes, you *can* put strictures on the using code into a
library, though I wouldn't do it and would say that any module that does
so shouldn't be released on CPAN for general use. ..."
Hey, I have an idea. Let's write a module that enforces that!
Seriously, I t
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 13:25, Trey Harris wrote:
> I read it as "yes, you *can* put strictures on the using code into a
> library, though I wouldn't do it and would say that any module that does
> so shouldn't be released on CPAN for general use. But even if you can do
> that, you *must* al
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, jesse writes:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:01:22PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
The point is that the person writing the program decides which handcuffs or
costumes all of the code has to wear, not the person writing the libraries.
If you want to set a policy for you
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:01:22PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 01:05, jesse wrote:
>
> > One of the things that many shops have defected from Perl to Java for
> > is the additional handcuffs that Java provides for less-than-experienced
> > developers. Giving me the p
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:48, jesse wrote:
> Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of "don't let
> people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules"
> but a matter of "perl should always give you enough rope to turn off any
> stricture imposed
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:09, jesse wrote:
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "person writing the
> program" and "person writing the libraries." In fact, I've _gotta_
> be. I'd like to be able to put my strictures in a library rather than
> forcing them into the main body of a
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 01:05, jesse wrote:
> One of the things that many shops have defected from Perl to Java for
> is the additional handcuffs that Java provides for less-than-experienced
> developers. Giving me the power to control what my team, or folks using
> my language variant, do c
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:50:16AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 October 2006 10:06, Aaron Sherman wrote:
>
> > Would there be such tools used in the core libraries? Maybe, maybe not,
> > we could discuss that. If they were implemented in the core libraries
> > would there be a univer
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always "No library
designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast or strict my
program has to run." Whatever B&D you do in the privacy of your own modules
is fine, but if it
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 10:06, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> Would there be such tools used in the core libraries? Maybe, maybe not,
> we could discuss that. If they were implemented in the core libraries
> would there be a universal "no bondage" flag that shut them off?
> Probably, since that's somet
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:32, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its
On 10/2/06, Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
> and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
> there really a market for this sort of thing?
>
use strict;
you're so twel
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:32, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
> I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
> What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
> strictures for its users? Ditt
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
This reminds me of the endless student "proofs" that trise
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Dave Whipp wrote:
: >Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core "strict"
: >and "warnings" modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
: >rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which "core" modules ca
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core "strict"
and "warnings" modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which "core" modules can
register module-specific strictures/warnings/di
Dave Whipp wrote:
Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core "strict"
and "warnings" modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which "core" modules can
register module-specific strictures/warnings/diagnostics.
Question:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its users? Ditto for a role placing restrictions on
the
Dave Whipp wrote:
Smylers wrote:
>>use strict;
>
> That's different: it's _you_ that's forbidding things that are otherwise
> legal in your code; you can choose whether to do it or not.
Which suggests that the people wanting to specify the restrictions are
actually asking for a way to specify ad
Smylers wrote:
use strict;
That's different: it's _you_ that's forbidding things that are otherwise
legal in your code; you can choose whether to do it or not.
Which suggests that the people wanting to specify the restrictions are
actually asking for a way to specify additional strictures fo
jerry gay wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
> I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
> and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
> there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
Hmm... granted. But that does tend to sidestep the ma
jerry gay writes:
> On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
> > and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code.
> > Is there really a market for this sort of thing?
>
> use strict;
That's di
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:48, Jonathan Lang wrote:
The examples I gave involved specific roles or routines being
forbidden from use in certain situations; my gut instinct is that if
you don't think that it's appropriate to use a particular role or
routine somewhere, you should simply not use it there;
On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:26 AM, jerry gay wrote:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
32 matches
Mail list logo
