This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Regular Expression Special Variables
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 158
Version:
Hugo wrote:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David L. Nicol" writes:
> :I think I did -- I guess v2 didn't make it in; I sent it again; what
> :were your and mjd's comments again?
>
> Here are the messages:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language-regex%40perl.org/msg00306.html
> http://www.mail
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Perl should support an interactive mode.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Ariel Scolnicov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 184
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Numeric Value Ranges In Regular Expressions
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 5 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 197
Ve
> "AD" == Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AD> Making the build process fairly modular and keeping a Config.pm
AD> record of what this particular perl binary can and can not do are
AD> both seemingly reasonable goals for the perl6-build process.
Please, make the Config.pm be intern
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Allow Varibles in tr///
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 165
Version: 3
Stat
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Alternative lists and quoting of things
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2000
Last Modifiedj: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 166
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Boolean Regexes
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 6 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 198
Version: 2
Status: Devel
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Generalised Additions to Regexs
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 274
Version: 1
Status: Developing
=head
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Glenn Linderman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In my opinion, which you probably will also not agree with, attempting
> > to toggle between the current undef semantics and tristate semantics is
> > like trying to stuff three values into one bit.
>
> I do understand the ar
OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I
send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around
shortly.
Detail to note. If this holds up legally, it is a context-
sensitive license which is both incompatible with the GPL and
itself. If men cannot serve two masters who dis
Ben Tilly wrote:
>OK, here is what I hope is the last draft of the AL before I
>send out an RFC. I will send humorous commentary around
>shortly.
OK, here is the "translation" as well. If people like it my
goal is to make the structure of the legalese a little easier.
One comment I have receiv
Jeremy:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Karl
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> But with Fortran such things are not *needed*. Compilers are smart
> enough to convert (equivalents to)
>
> map 3*$_, 34..67
This is true, but easier (and less buggy) to say what you
exactly what you mean. 102:201:3
Anyway the idea has been proposed, it won't break
Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
> > and factor this into your thinking!
> >
> Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
> negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
>
At 04:58 PM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
Given how
At 05:18 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > Garrett Goebel wrote:
> > >
> > > Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the
> > > code is in the public domain?
> >
> > Yes..if someone is ready to actively defend it. Can you pictu
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>
>>>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
>>>
>>>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative
At 11:01 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
>>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
>>
>>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
>>
>>"The contents
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought
> >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.
> >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it invites
> >every variant to call itself perl, which is som
At 02:29 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought
> > >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.
> > >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it i
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 02:29 PM 9/22/00 -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>>Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the code is in the
>>public domain?
>
>Dunno. Probably, but I'm not a lawyer, and that might be taking things to
>places we'd rather not go.
IANAL eit
Garrett Goebel wrote:
>
>From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > >Heh. One of my goals was to find a way to state what I thought
> > >was the core feeling of the Artistic License in a sound way.
> > >Saying that you are public domain is fine except that it invites
> > >every variant
Garrett Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the code is in the
> public domain?
Probably. It definitely can still be used in that fashion if Perl were
released under an MIT-style license, which I'd recommend over public
domain, since that's
From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Garrett Goebel wrote:
> >
> > Can't a trademark be used to protect "Perl", even if the
> > code is in the public domain?
>
> Yes..if someone is ready to actively defend it. Can you picture
> Larry sending a ton of "cease and desist" letters over e
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:52:51AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > > > $x = 3 * @_;
> > > >
> > > > suddently being equivalent to
> > > >
> > > > $x = @_;
> > > >
> > > > does not look very promising...
>
> Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
> somethin
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> > You are trading a frequently used shortcut @a == 1 + $#a for a
> > rarely-used-but-beautiful/intuitive semantic. I'm not sure it is a win.
>
> It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
> differ. Of course I use arr
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:01:11AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
> > differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
> > user.
> It's not just for number-crunchers either. Array notation greatly simplif
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> Are you trying to convince me/us that is going to be used often?
>
Yes, I am. You made the unsupported statement that array operations are
rarely used. I'm suggesting otherwise (although to say that they're rarely
used in Perl 5 is a tautology, of course!).
> > Array not
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:41:07AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > a) You can *already* use vectors as scalars in Perl;
>
> That's not what RFC 82 is proposing.
Who cares? This already works...
> > b) What we are discussing is Perl, not Mathematica, J, PDL, and so
> >forth. These language
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
> > differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
> > user.
>
> ...Do you say you are confused by using
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> > > Moveover,
> > >
> > > $x = 3 * @_;
> > >
> > > suddently being equivalent to
> > >
> > > $x = @_;
> > >
> > > does not look very promising...
Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
something?
> while () {
> s/^M$//;
> # Process $_
> }
Cute psuedocode.
I don't like at all, it makes me feel like I'm dealing with a
typewritter. But, giving multiple values to $/ seems more painful to me
that to just
tr/\r//d;
on any suspected M$ strings
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:21:27 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>=item perl6storm #0031
>
>Add pragma to auto-flock LOCK_EX any files opened O_WRONLY,
>and LOCK_SH otherwise.
Good idea. I thought of proposing something like this ages ago. Perl is
a high-level language, it must be thinkable to patch
Glenn Linderman said [in response to Russ]:
>
> ...maybe explaining the types of confusion that you see
> with a separate null and undef vs the types of confusion that you see with a
> tristate pragma would help me to grasp that logic.
I don't see why we need to keep spinning our wheels on this
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Greg Boug wrote:
> > > =item perl6storm #0064
> > >
> > > Do something about microsoft's CRLF abomination.
>
> Perhaps somehow allowing $/ to take multiple input delimeters (perhaps in a
> fashion similar to egrep)... How about:
[snip]
> $/ = "seperator1|seperator2"
At 11:33 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Please see the offered translation.
I did.
>And if still you don't like the way that this layperson wrote
>it, then come up with your own draft that says what you want
>and sounds like what you want. In case you didn't notice,
No.
>putting togeth
At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory
explicitly marked othe
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
>
>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
>
>"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ dire
At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>
>>At 06:28 AM 9/22/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
>>> THE ARTISTIC LICENSE
>>> VERSION 2, SEPTEMBER 2000
>>
>>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
>>
>>"The contents
Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>At 11:01 -0400 2000.09.22, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
[...]
> >>Given how this looks, I'm tempted to put forth the alternative license:
> >>
> >>"The contents of this archive, except for packages in the ext/ directory
> >>explicitly marked otherwise, are placed
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> > f(3*@a)
> >
> > would typically be a list context - and suddently instead of 3*(1+$#a)
> > you get C.
>
> This is true, what I would propose is we declare 3*(1+$#a) outmoded and
> always have it mean C in all contexts.
>
> This of course wi
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
> and factor this into your thinking!
>
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next version. Are there any other dif
Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
> > and factor this into your thinking!
> >
> Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
> negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> You are trading a frequently used shortcut @a == 1 + $#a for a
> rarely-used-but-beautiful/intuitive semantic. I'm not sure it is a win.
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a h
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
> differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
> user.
...Do you say you are confused by using vectors (=scalars) instead of
arrays?
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 11:17:40AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
[Cryptocontext is:]
> > f(3*@a)
> >
> > would typically be a list context - and suddently instead of 3*(1+$#a)
> > you get C.
>
> This is true, what I would propose is we declare 3*(1+$#a) outmoded and
> always have it mean C in
47 matches
Mail list logo
