On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:23:04PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
>
> "Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> > : and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:11:21PM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex"
> : functions to do a similar both-way thing, such that:
>
> What's a two-way function supposed to ret
"Larry Wall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> : and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex"
> : functions to do a similar both-way thing, such that:
>
> What's
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 12:11 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex"
: functions to do a similar both-way thing, such that:
What's a two-way function supposed to return
From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex"
> functions to do a similar both-way thing, such that:
[...]
> but people just aren't biting, so far. Don't see why
> not, I think it's keen.
There's the problem Larry ment
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 11:57:33AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
: and _I'm_ trying to promote the reuse of the old "oct/hex"
: functions to do a similar both-way thing, such that:
What's a two-way function supposed to return if you pass it something
that has both a string and a numeric valu
On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 11:01 AM, Dave Storrs wrote:
Actually, this would be a good reason to have a function called
"literal" -- if it went both ways. So, I could do this:
print literal(200+55):hex; # == print "0xff";
print literal("0xff)); # == print 255;
[EMAIL PROTE
Attributions getting confusing, so I have snipped and rewritten:
Dave Storrs writes:
> > Actually, this would be a good reason to have a function called
> > "literal" -- if it went both ways. So, I could do this:
> >
> >print literal(200+55):hex; # == print "0xff";
> >print litera
Dave Storrs writes:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:50:52PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Michael Lazzaro writes:
> > depending on WYW . or the casting may be let to happen in two stages
> > : string -> num -> specific num type ,e.g. uint16
>
> How about if we got adverbial on the probl
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:50:52PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Lazzaro writes:
> > Let's summarize some of the string-to-num issues:
> >
> >my int $i = literal "0xff"; # 255
> >
> >
> > (3) -- We want to be able to parse a string as a number using a very
> > _specific
Michael Lazzaro writes:
> Let's summarize some of the string-to-num issues:
>
>my int $i = literal "0xff"; # 255
>
>
> (3) -- We want to be able to parse a string as a number using a very
> _specific_ rule; for example, if a user is expected to enter a value in
> a specific forma
Let's summarize some of the string-to-num issues:
(1) -- A number is just a number, regardless of how it's put in.
Therefore:
my int $i = 0xff;
my int $i = 255;
result in the identical number, 255, being placed in $i. Once it's in
there, there's no way to tell what format it originally
12 matches
Mail list logo
