This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Better english names for -X
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 26 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 290
Version: 2
Statu
> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRL> -r freadable()
PRL> -w fwriteable()
PRL> -x fexecable()
PRL> -o fowned()
PRL> -R Freadable()
PRL> -W Fwriteable()
PRL> -X Fexecable()
PRL> -O Fowned()
PRL> -e fexis
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:48:33AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PRL> -r freadable()
> PRL> -w fwriteable()
> PRL> -x fexecable()
> PRL> -o fowned()
>
> PRL> -R Freadable()
> PRL> -W Fwrite
I do not see how the cited RFCs manage to cover the fact
that while () doesn't do a localization, but that for()
does, and that this confuses people.
--tom, incognito
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the ind
> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be
AT> exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm
AT> on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable()
AT> looks better. It is tom's
* Perl6 RFC Librarian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 18:36]: []
[...]
> When this pragma is loaded, it should replace the print coderef with a
> function that will print out all headers in the @HEADERS queue, print
> out the desired output, and restore the print coderef.
It should also ens
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Lazy Input / Context-sensitive Input
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 26 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 285
Version:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:50:28AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>
> >Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
> >export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
>
> Can you say "method"?
Doesn't wo
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
First-Class CGI Support
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 26 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 288
Version: 2
Status: F
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 19:54]:
> On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
[...]
> > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > indentation to define block structure.
> What an idea! I wonder why no language has tried this before.
I realise you're
This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
about it,
either. Mark my words.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the i
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> indentation to define block structur
./sun4-solaris/POSIX.pm:sub isatty {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scope {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_state {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_miniwhile { # check for one-line loop
(`foo() while $y--')
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scalar {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_su
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> what's going on.
I'd go further
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> The concept of C as opposed to C is sometimes difficult for
> people to understand.
"People" in this context being the people who are reading perl6-language and
purporting to be able to know what Perl 6 needs. People who ought
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
The most important optimization a programmer can make is to optimize
for understanding.
--
Piers
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:17 AM, Tom Christiansen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
> anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
> about it,
> either. Mark my words.
Quote from Larry: "I have
[Quoting Dave Storrs, on September 26 2000, 11:47, in "Re: RFC 292 (v1) Ext"]
> I'm confused...are you suggesting that the debugger should no
> longer be integrated into perl?
Absolutely not!
What I wanted to indicate is that the input and output handling of the
debugger, currently line in
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, not to mention the fact that many modules, notably CGI.pm,
> > are arranged to allow to use unquoted strings of the form -name:
> >
> > print textfield( -name => 'description' );
>
> Well, this one's not an iss
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote:
> Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
> instead that does such auto-formatting?
In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and
if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
Each parenthesis is one "token". The more tokens y
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > (defun Schwartzian (func list)
> > (mapcar
> >(lambda (x) (car x))
> >(sort
> > (mapcar
> > (lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
> > list
> > )
> > (lambda (x y) (< (cdr x) (cdr y)))
> > )
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which is what I'm working on. You'll all be extremely pleased to know, I'm
> sure, that I have notes here for another 12 RFCs. After that, I have to start
> thinking.
Three days to go to the Big Freeze. Where are you going to find the
time?
--
Piers
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:34:32AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Which is what I'm working on. You'll all be extremely pleased to know, I'm
> > sure, that I have notes here for another 12 RFCs. After that, I have to start
> > thinking.
>
> Three days to
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:45:06AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Hey, I did 25 on Monday. You mean you didn't notice they're generated
> automatically?
Ah. You've outdoing Damian Conway with code that parses the p5p archives for
"I'd like to see...", feeding this into a neural net to isolate and c
HI Tom,
Welcome to England (I presume)
> This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
> expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
> /FOO/ && /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
> fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pa
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I have
:been thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding
:functionality. Hence I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is
:kept free from formal specification for this
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:21 AM, John Porter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > >
> > > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > > indentation to define block structure.
> >
> > What an idea! I
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
> need to ruin the cuteness.
"use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you f
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:30:36AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> Although I have no interest in saying anything supportive of this idea, I think
> it would be dreadfully funny if Python suddenly lost its primary point of
> advocacy against the Perl language just because we allowed (not required)
Goodness, no, don't call it "PRAYER". The blessing
is one of corporate approval, not ecclesiastical deprecationem.
Please don't piss people off.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> > PRL> -r freadable()
> > PRL> -w fwriteable()
> > PRL> -x fexecable()
> > PRL> -o fowned()
> >
> > PRL> -R Freadable()
> > PRL> -W Fwriteable()
> > PRL> -X Fexecable()
> > PRL> -O Fowned()
> >
> > this looks decent to
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 07:36:42AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Tainting should be able to be turned off, as Tom recommends,
> but only if the user turns on the "absolutely, positively,
> do NOT turn on taint mode" switch.
I can see it now -- C. Really, I don't see why we can't
just have a
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> What I wanted to indicate is that the input and output handling of the
> debugger, currently line input and line output, should not be turned
> into a sophisticated user interface with command line recall/editing
> and fancy output paging (e.g. two in
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
> > need to ruin the cuteness.
>
> "use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
C
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> You suggested:
>
> file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
>
> That's really insane. The goal was to produce code that's legible.
I'd always use -w and would never use anything else. I was just
brainstorming.
And I personally don't understand your sugge
David Grove wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:17 AM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> > This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
> > anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
> > about it,
> > either. Mark my words.
>
> Quote from Lar
Philip Newton wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> >
> > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > indentation to define block structure.
>
> What an idea! I wonder why no language has tried this before.
It's a question of what the language allows vs. what
At 08:59 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it
> > works. Might not be as efficient as full kernel support for async
> > I/O, but it'll do. At least there'
At 08:31 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
>
>Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own IO
>subsystem, can't we fake it ourselves?
If we w
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:37 AM 9/27/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >Perl should adopt scheme-like symbols, both at the language level
> >and at the internals level.
>
> The explanation of this isn't that clear for me. (I have no scheme
> experience at all)
> "DS" == Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens
DS> in a regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation
DS> is that \1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside
DS> of the regex. Is t
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> > > is used within the regex itself and $1 is used o
> "Jonathan" == Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jonathan> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:15:53AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
>> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
>> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
>> is u
On 27 Sep 2000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Do we *want* to maintain \1? Why have two notations to do the
>
> I'm kind of curious about what happens when you want to do, say:
>
> if (m/(\S+)/) {
> $reg = qr{<(em|i|b)>($1)};
> }
>
> where the $1 in the regex quote is refering to $1
On Wed 27 Sep, Dave Storrs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that
> > > \1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used ou
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> If $1 could be made to work properly on the LHS of s///, I'd vote for
> that being The Way.
That was pretty much my thought?
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
> > Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> > regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> > is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> > there any reason n
At 02:37 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>Seconded. If I want a language where everything is an object, I know
>where to find it. When I hack Perl, I want things to be optimized for
>those "90% text, 10% something else" problems that Perl so well fills.
>I don't want text to become
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Add a "emit pod" runtime option to Perl
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 26 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 286
Versio
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Generate module dependencies easily
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 26 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 289
Version: 2
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:24:05AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> well, my question then is how does solaris do it? it can't be done with
> user level libs alone. what system calls does it use? undocumented ones
> perhaps with the libs as the public api?
> i finally found how solaris does its AIO un
This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
/FOO/ && /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pairs!
For example, /CAN/ && /ANAL/ can't be written
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]/, Perl6 RFC
> Librarian writes:
> :Given that expansion of regexes could include (+...) and (*...) I
> :have been thinking about providing a general purpose way of adding
> :functionality. Hence I propose that the entire (+...) syntax is
> :kept free from formal specifi
2000-09-27-05:28:01 Piers Cawley:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > > At the suggestion of others I've opted to freeze rather than
> > > withdraw.
> >
> > How might I persuade you to reconsider?
>
> I was kind
> Rename the C operator
> A list of other proposed replacement names includes (but is not
> limited to, since I certainly have forgotten some):
> C
Unfortunately, I wish this RFC would have taken a stand on at least a
first choice. :-( I always thought that "now" was by far the most
descriptive
> The AUTOGLOB subroutine should expect to take two parameters, the invocant,
> and a second parameter specifying what type of item is being AUTOGLOBbed,
> followed by - in the case of a sub - the sub's arguments. We suggest that
> the second parameter should be a scalar value - 'scalar' for an A
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:53:03AM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> Ok, no fair sniping after a freeze. You were warned. It's called email,
> people! Use it. Jeez...
Never too late to withdraw, sir. [1] The less crap we make Larry wade through,
the better.
[1] Well, up until the pregnancy, I guess.
Dave Storrs wrote:
> It isn't terribly clear to me either
Well, he does give a couple references that would clear it up.
X11 Atoms are well documented.
> saying is that you can qs() a method name, get a "thingie" out, store the
> thingine in a scalar, and then that scalar becomes a direct portal
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
Yep. If you don't stop, pretty soon you have sh. :-P
> l((apply &foo (mapcar &bar (@wibble
pragma time:
use literal qw( apply mapcar http://www.perl.org/ );
use LWP::Simple;
getpri
> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:53:49PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
>> > It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
>> That's it?
Simon> That isn't enough? Christ, man, this is Perl we're talking about. If Perl
Simon> isn't Per
In this message, I attempt to document how I have addressed all the issues
from Ben's proposed version of the AL. The easiest way to read this
commentary is have my proposed AL (based on 2.0beta2) along with Ben's open
in other windows/buffers. I use section numbers to make the commentary less
v
> "RA" == Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RA> Michael Maraist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I suggested this a while ago, and the response was that automatically
>> writing files is a security risk. You should extend your RFC to
>> describe a caching directory or configuration.
RA
On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> First-Class CGI Support
Freezing within two days doesn't leave much space for comments and or
objections does it?
I'
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own IO subsystem,
can't we fake it ourselves?
--
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, the
> "SC" == Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
SC> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:40:27AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it works.
SC> Well, given that line disciplines means we have to write our own
SC> IO subsystem, can't we fak
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Uri Guttman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> now what bothers me is that all those calls are in section 3 and are no
> section 2 system calls. maybe it is faked with threads but i haven't
> found any support for that notion. if so, i wonder if we can actually
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't much care how its faked (if it is) as long as it
> works. Might not be as efficient as full kernel support for async
> I/O, but it'll do. At least there's some overlap. (You can get
> better device request or
> "TH" == Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TH> I can't see any reference to threads in the Solaris manual pages
TH> either. Certainly Unixware does:
TH> I thought that using threads was the standard SVR4 implementation
TH> but maybe Solaris has moved away from that.
well, my q
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to "Everything
> becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual hurdles
> exist which have discouraged more serious discussion. At the suggestion of
>
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm kind of curious to know what you think would happen with the
> > following. I've commented where I'm confident...
> >
> > interface Number;
> > sub TIESCALAR;
> > sub STORE;
> > sub FETCH;
> >
> > package integer implements Nu
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to "Everything
> > becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual hurdles
> > exist which have discourag
> grep -l Class::Struct */*.pm
Class/Struct.pm
File/stat.pm
Net/hostent.pm
Net/netent.pm
Net/protoent.pm
Net/servent.pm
Time/gmtime.pm
Time/localtime.pm
Time/tm.pm
User/grent.pm
User/pwent.pm
Please check those out for precedent and practice.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
there any reason not to standardize these down to one notation (i.e.,
eliminate
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:15:53AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any r
Dave,
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any reason not to standardize these down to one notation
From: "Dave Storrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
> regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
> is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
> there any reason not to standa
> > On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > > Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to
"Everything
> > > becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual
hurdles
> > > exist which have discouraged more serious discussion. At the
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:29:22AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> $ok = try $scalar;
> $ok = try @array
> $ok = try %hash;
> $ok = try ⊂
I'd like to see a more specific name for these. 'try' is too useful a word
for core to gobble it up for everything (IMHO). attempt_lock? Or simpl
Philip Newton wrote:
>
> > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
> > instead that does such auto-formatting?
>
> In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and
> if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys and in
>
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
>
> We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
> C for when we want to be grammatically
> correct. Or am I just being silly now?
Or have perl enforce the correct grammar.
% perl -
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note
> about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it separately?
Adding headers() to the core language (or a similar pragma that is
automagically invo
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:45:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> But on a tangential note: has anyone proposed letting
> functions, perhaps by prototype, allow the autoquoting
> of arguments?
I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
use fewer sewers;
would be fine, and I'd lik
> On the matter of gcos or gecos, and passwd or pw_passwd, and all
> that noise, please consult the User::pwent manpage.
> There's no reason for all those noisy bits.
Since the standard function provides those noisy bits, this proposal
names them.
> In fact, there had jolly well
Damian Conway wrote:
>
>> On the matter of gcos or gecos, and passwd or pw_passwd, and all
>> that noise, please consult the User::pwent manpage.
>> There's no reason for all those noisy bits.
>
> Since the standard function provides those noisy bits, this proposal
> names them.
Not
> So getpwnam/uid should probably return gecos, not gcos.
Yep. Already fixed in the next version.
Damian
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Really, I don't see why we can't
> just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
Z.
At 11:04 PM 9/26/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>Well, let's go over here, then. I just submitted an RFC for internal string
>abstraction, which may or may not be the same thing as what you were just
>talking about.
Well, the impression I get from Larry is that he wants the internals to be
charac
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 01:26:18PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 11:04 PM 9/26/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >Well, let's go over here, then. I just submitted an RFC for internal string
> >abstraction, which may or may not be the same thing as what you were just
> >talking about.
>
> Well, th
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Well, the impression I get from Larry is that he wants the internals to be
> character-formatting neutral. Scalars should be able to provide their
> contents in a number of different formats, but perl would usually not have
> One True Format internall
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Well, the impression I get from Larry is that he wants the internals to be
> character-formatting neutral. Scalars should be able to provide their
> contents in a number of different formats, but perl would usually not have
> One True Format internall
I know it's unfair to comment on a frozen RFC, but I think it's
important to note a few things:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:22:30AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Maintainer: J. David Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Status: Frozen
[snip]
> Dubbed the "conservative" approach by Mark-Jason
I have written a proposed version of the Artistic License, which is
attached.
It appears that there are three camps right now in this Working Group:
(A) Those who want the Artistic License to stay as it is.
(B) Those who want the Artistic License to be clarified to remove legal
confus
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> Would something less esoteric like Javascript be a better comparison?
Not really. Perl and JavaScript have very little in common, despite what
members of this list would like to do.
--
DEC diagnostics would run on a dead whale.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:16:36PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> I open to hearing your reasons. The biggest reason it wasn't withdrawn is
> because someone said "hey don't do that, here's why". So give me a "why"
> already...
It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
--
It took the c
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Not really. Perl and JavaScript have very little in common, despite what
> members of this list would like to do.
One of the big problems with this current discussion is nobody on either
side (RFC included) is providing any specifics as to how this could
potentially work.
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:31:25PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> > Would something less esoteric like Javascript be a better comparison?
>
> Not really. Perl and JavaScript have very little in common, despite what
> members of this list would like to do.
>
I wasn't suggesting that Javascr
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:43:45PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> As list chair, I ask either:
>1. The people discussing this clarify themselves
>2. The people discussing this please drop it
Ho hum. You've heard, I believe, my arguments now. I'm happy to drop the
matter, since it seems a ri
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:16:36PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> > I open to hearing your reasons. The biggest reason it wasn't withdrawn
is
> > because someone said "hey don't do that, here's why". So give me a "why"
> > already...
>
> It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
>
That
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:53:49PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
> > It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
> That's it?
That isn't enough? Christ, man, this is Perl we're talking about. If Perl
isn't Perlish, something is wrong.
--
!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
