> "NI" == Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NI> Chaim Frenkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Have every Package generate a vtbl for each subroutine in the package.
>> Then when something is blessed into the package (if this is retained for
>> OO) then the objects vtbl becomes the p
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 11:44:10PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 16:32:26 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> >I sincerely hope you really mean "Let's make ``open() or die''
> >optional" Exceptions should be integrated into the language but Ye
> >Olde "returns undef on error"
> "UG" == Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
UG> it it not about how hard it is to implement, but how hard it is to hide
UG> implementation details from the language specs. in this case it is very
UG> hard. signals are messy.
I'm sorry, please expound on this. I can't see where you have
Ted Ashton said:
> Thus it was written in the epistle of Uri Guttman,
> >
> > how do you tell the above two apart? by array do you mean only an array
> > variable? then you can't chomp a list of scalar values or multiple
> > arrays, etc.
> >
> > this needs to be clarified.
>
> Quite true. The two
wacko idea:
combine a generic data tree traverse engine with damian's switch op.
you pass this new smart traverse a ref and it will scan the tree. at
every node it sees, it can call callbacks or methods. it can do the
callbacks in pre, in or post ordering to get useful effects. if a node
is an
Michael Mathews wrote:
>
> Like "join" the order of arguments would have to be "chomp($thing_to_remove,
> @array)" but this spoils the default behavior of $thing_to_remove being
> optional...
>
> unless you think we should require arrays to be passed by reference.
Well, if we were really talkin
At 06:10 PM 8/8/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
>wacko idea:
>
>combine a generic data tree traverse engine with damian's switch op.
>
>you pass this new smart traverse a ref and it will scan the tree. at
>every node it sees, it can call callbacks or methods. it can do the
>callbacks in pre, in or p
Merge it in with the macro capability.
That would be an immediate subroutine. One that simply returns
undef. (i.e. Nothing inserted into the parse stream.)
Hmm, maybe nothing needs to be added to that.
> "NT" == Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NT> I'm chewing over an RFC on
Bart Lateur said:
> So what are these really good for? To get rid of the line terminator, or
> "Record Separator", when reading from a file. That is what they are for,
> that is what we should facilitate. Not the chop()ping or chomp()ing of
> just any string.
>
> So, let's keep in tune with the R
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, Roman M . Parparov wrote:
> This is a tough one. But it is known that the numerical game scores and
> likewise are being written RTL. As for math, I've seen it being written
> both ways. I am not a native hebrew speaker and I consulted some natives
> at work and no consensus w
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, Peter Bevan wrote:
> However, with the birth of the new Perl, I think it is time to bury those
> ideoms in the language and
> start inventing new ones..
>
Two words: "New Coke"
I think that Perl survived its first through fifth births because the
idioms it chose to implemen
> I'm all for adding a new and improved time mechanism with a bit less
> of the oddness localtime() carries, but does it really hurt us to leave
> the old style in the core?
Not necessarily. But I think most people agree we should decide on one
interface. If we stuck to this, we'd have to move lo
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, Ed Mills wrote:
> As long as were culling, might want to consider removing chomp() and
> possibly chop(). The language provides other ways to accomplish those thru a
> simple regex,
Then we should remove regexs instead. :-)
> and if the "println" suggestion I made was "t
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> There's two ways I see it:
>
> 1) do {} block
>
>$val = do {
> $x = 10;
> # ... stuff happens ...
> $y;
>};
>
> In which case $val = $y.
>
> 2) explicit our() scoping
>
>$x = 10;
>our $y = 10;
>{
> $
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, Bennett Todd wrote:
> If perl6 substantially fails to fill the important roles that perl5
> fills, we should stop screwing everybody up by calling it "perl",
> and call it something else.
Hmmm. I vote for "Edsel."
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
15 matches
Mail list logo
