On 15 Feb 2001, at 20:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:31:34AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > With Perl 6, it will (probably) be possible to have values with boolean
> > value independent of integer or string values, so that it will be possible
> > to have a value that when vi
Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Mitchell wrote:
> > To get my head round PDD 2, I've just written the the outline
> > for the body of the add() method for a hypophetical integer PMC class:
>
> [... lots of complex code ...]
>
> I think this example is a good reason to consider only ha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I wrote elsewhere, other reasons not to change the behaviour of my:
>
> GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
> bar => \my $bar);
>
GetOptions (foo => \my($foo),
bar => \my($bar));
> tie my $shoe => $tring;
>
tie my($shoe) => $tring;
#
On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote:
> But it surely isn't
> consistent with the rest of the language.
It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other
things in the language that parallel its use.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @a = (1 .. 10);
> $a, $b, $c = @_;
>
> $c becomes 10. Should $c become 3 when my is placed before $a?
>
No. If my binds weaker than =, it would be
my $a, $b, $c = @_;
is the same as
my $a, $b, ($c = @_);
as the opposite of
(my $a, $b, $c) =
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:09:45PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> People in Japan/China/Korea have been using multi-byte encoding for
> long time. I personally have used it for more 10 years.
And now you have a chance to not do so. Isn't that *nice*?
--
Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leav
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 04:55:00PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:59:54PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > > The concept of characters have nothing to do with codepoints.
> > > Many characters are composed by more than one codepoints.
> >
> > This isn't true.
>
> What do you
Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:59:54PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > The concept of characters have nothing to do with codepoints.
> > Many characters are composed by more than one codepoints.
>
> This isn't true.
>
Yes, for UTF-16 it is. For UTF-32 it isn't, but unless you want
Edward Peschko wrote:
> How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by
commas
> in any context'? This is consistent
>
> $a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a, $b, $c) = ($d, $e, $f);
>
I guess this should be
$a, $b, ($c = $d), $e, $f
I think making `my' work just the same as
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tie (my $shoe) => $string;
>
> Not enough arguments for tie...
>
tie +(my $shoe) => $string;
This is the same as would happen to `print', for example. Or else, the
easyer
tie my($shoe) => $string;
It doesn't look like a function, so it isn't.
>
> Ah, mo
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:26:43PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:24:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > Yes, for UTF-16 it is. For UTF-32 it isn't
>
> Yes, it damned well is.
I mean, no, it damned well isn't. But you probably guessed that.
> You're confusing "codepoint" wit
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:24:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> Yes, for UTF-16 it is. For UTF-32 it isn't
Yes, it damned well is.
You're confusing "codepoint" with "number of bytes in representation".
--
I would imagine most of the readers of this group would support abortion
as long as fifty or s
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 05:09 PM 2/15/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> >People in Japan/China/Korea have been using multi-byte encoding for
> >long time. I personally have used it for more 10 years. I never feel
> >much of the "pain". Do you think I are using my computer with O(n)
> >while you are
Hai,
as Beatie says byteperl is a standalone application that runs system
independent bytecode generated by O Module and Bmodule backend.
Perl will get another height if it is a success . As larry says perl will
generate C,C++ and Java codes(?)..
I am interested in developing a application tha
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:26:10PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "TB" == Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> TB> As a part of that the weak reference concept, bolted recently into
> TB> perl5, could be made more central in perl6.
>
> TB> Around 92.769% of the time circular refere
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote:
> > But it surely isn't
> > consistent with the rest of the language.
>
> It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other
> things in the language that parallel its use.
>
Well, `local' is actually
I said:
> Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
> strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave the
same
> as those.
>
Actually, they *look like* list operators, they should behave like those.
> - Branden
>
>
On Friday 16 February 2001 09:24, Branden wrote:
> I said:
> > Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
> > strongly than , and = .
Because the implicit global scope declarator binds that tightly.
Because you lose the ability to mix scope declarators in an assigment.
> "TB" == Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TB> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:26:10PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> > "TB" == Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
TB> As a part of that the weak reference concept, bolted recently into
TB> perl5, could be made more central in
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Larry has guaranteed that Perl 6 will be built "out of the same source tree"
> as Perl 5. This is a major win for us in two areas. Firstly, we can reuse the
> information determined by Perl 5's Configure process to help make Perl 6
> portable:
> Second
> > What do you mean? Have you seen people using multi-byte encoding
> > in Japan/China/Korea?
>
> You're talking to the wrong person. Japanese data handling is my graduate
> dissertation. :)
>
> The Unified Hangul/Kanji/Ha'nzi' Characters in Unicode (so-called
"Unihan")
> occupy one and only one
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> Did it buy you much? I don't believe so. Can you give some examples why
> random character access is so important?
substr's already been mentioned.
Regular expressions. Perl does rather a lot of them. We've already found from
Perl 5 d
On Friday 16 February 2001 15:35, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > Did it buy you much? I don't believe so. Can you give some examples why
> > random character access is so important?
>
> substr's already been mentioned.
>
> Regular expression
On Friday 16 February 2001 14:55, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Secondly and more importantly, it guarantees that we've got a copy of
Perl on
> hand before Perl 6 is built. This allows us to reduce the level of
> preprocessor muddling by effectively generating the C source to Perl 6
from
> templates and
At 12:32 PM 2/16/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > > What do you mean? Have you seen people using multi-byte encoding
> > > in Japan/China/Korea?
> >
> > You're talking to the wrong person. Japanese data handling is my graduate
> > dissertation. :)
> >
> > The Unified Hangul/Kanji/Ha'nzi' Characte
At 12:20 PM 2/16/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > >People in Japan/China/Korea have been using multi-byte encoding for
> > >long time. I personally have used it for more 10 years. I never feel
> > >much of the "pain". Do you think I are using my computer with O(n)
> > >while you are using it with
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:55:10PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Secondly and more importantly, it guarantees that we've got a copy of Perl on
> hand before Perl 6 is built. This allows us to reduce the level of
> preprocessor muddling by effectively generating the C source to Perl 6 from
> templa
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:52:03PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> macro languages and symbolic debuggers don't mix well.
Generated output would be Real Life C. I'm thinking something along the lines
of
perl vtable.pl < vtable.spec > vtable.c
which would work just fine with symbolic debuggers
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:52:03PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > macro languages and symbolic debuggers don't mix well.
>
> Generated output would be Real Life C. I'm thinking something along the lines
> of
> perl vtable.pl < vtable.spec > vtable.
> Then you would be incorrect. To find the character at position 233253 in a
> variable-length encoding requires scanning the string from the beginning,
> and has a rather significant potential cost. You've got a test for every
> character up to that point with a potential branch or two on each on
> substr's already been mentioned.
I have already given the counter argument. The codepoint position is useless
in many cases. They should be deprecated.
> Regular expressions. Perl does rather a lot of them. We've already found
from
> Perl 5 development that they get nasty when variable length
Larry has guaranteed that Perl 6 will be built "out of the same source tree"
as Perl 5. This is a major win for us in two areas. Firstly, we can reuse the
information determined by Perl 5's Configure process to help make Perl 6
portable: for instance, I expect we'll still be using the [UI](8|16|32
> And address arithmetic and mem(cmp|cpy) is faster than array iteration.
Ha Ha Ha. You must be kidding.
The mem(cmp|cpy) work just fine on UTF-8 string comparison and copy.
But the memcmp() can not be used for UTF-32 string comparison, because
of endian issue.
Hong
Is this (these) thread(s) to the point where it is worth spinning off a new
sublist? If a couple of the main contributors (Dan, Simon, Branden, etc)
say yes, can we get perl6-internals-gc created?
-spp
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:54:04PM -0500, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Is this (these) thread(s) to the point where it is worth spinning off a new
> sublist? If a couple of the main contributors (Dan, Simon,
Hey, I proudly know *nothing* about GC.
> say yes, can we get perl6-internals-gc created?
> >People in Japan/China/Korea have been using multi-byte encoding for
> >long time. I personally have used it for more 10 years. I never feel
> >much of the "pain". Do you think I are using my computer with O(n)
> >while you are using it with O(1)? There are 100 million people using
> >variable-l
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:00:05PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> I think he meant that using a symbolic debugger is hard, not that it
> wouldn't work. After all, when GDB is tell you that:
>(*fooz).blazt[10].mark[0]->set(fungle(10));
> Is causing a seg fault and all you wrote was:
>$fooz->se
> >Did it buy you much? I don't believe so. Can you give some examples why
> >random character access is so important? Most people are processing text
> >linearly.
>
> Most, but not all. And as this is the internals list, we have to deal with
> all. We can't choose a convenient subset and ignore t
On Friday 16 February 2001 16:20, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > And address arithmetic and mem(cmp|cpy) is faster than array iteration.
>
> Ha Ha Ha. You must be kidding.
>
> The mem(cmp|cpy) work just fine on UTF-8 string comparison and copy.
> But the memcmp() can not be used for UTF-32 string compari
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:20, Branden wrote:
> proposal. I don't think it works, because
>
> $a, $b, $c = @_;# $c gets 10 for @_=(1..10)
>
> mean a different thing that
>
> my $a, $b, $c = @_; # $c gets 3 for @_=(1..10)
It does?
>
> The last code should behave as
>
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:38, Branden wrote:
>
> (my($a),our($b),local($,),my($c)) = @_;
>
> What is it, anyway? A joke? (There's Perl poetry, why can't be there Perl
> jokes?) Who writes this kind of code anyway?
Okay, you caught me, it was a contrived exampled. The actual code was
Branden wrote:
>
> As to the second item b), I would say I withdraw my complaints about `my' if
> my other proposal of `use scope' gets approved (since then I don't need `my'
> anymore!). I guess I would be happier with `use scope', and I also think it
> would make you happier, since it wouldn't
Branden wrote:
> a) Many of us want Perl to have globals as default, what is opposed to
> some that want `use strict' and `-w' turned on by default.
You are profoundly confused.
Globals *are* the default in current perl; and having strict 'vars'
on does not magically change that.
strict 'subs',
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Let alone that this:
>my $x, $y, $z;
> Doesn't DWIM, again according to what most people think.
Come on. What's so hard about knowing
( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables, and
my( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables declared local.
Answer: nothing.
John Porter wrote:
> It turns
> out that 'my' having higher precedence than comma is signficantly
> more useful than if it had a lower precedence.
>
Well, for me, it isn't useful, unless you can show me I'm wrong. At least
give me an example that shows it's more useful this way.
> Let's all just
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Even with warnings on, they are all too often ignored. Just today I
> got an email from a friend asking "why doesn't this program work"?
> The program was throwing a warning, but he'd ignored it. Turns out it
> was one of the problems. And he's no newbie.
Bizarre.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:04:51 -0300, Branden wrote:
>Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
>little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FILE }' to
>have the behaviour of not dying and setting $@ ?
The reason for its existence is simple: histor
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be so hasty to withdraw from the my binding argument. There's
> many uses of "my" that are required even with the "use scope" pragma (at
> least as I described it in RFC 64, but feel free to point it out if I
> missed an application). I think there's some good ch
>FOR
>---
> 1. It becomes more consistent with other Perl functions
my is not a function. It is a declaration. Functions take arguments
and return values. my does not. It is language construct like if.
Unless, of course, you claim that if is a function, too. That
ways lies LISP.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:51:31PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can we take this thread over to perl6-language-strict? Its where it
> belongs. Then you can argue to your heart's content and let us know
> when you've reached a conclusion.
Ok, that seems fair enough. But I really don't think
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:20:43PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> `my' DWIMs.
`my' will do what *you* mean at the cost of every single existing perl
programmer that currently uses it to relearn what it means. Not a
good trade off IMHO.
I'd rather `my' does what *I* mean which is what it does now.
> I
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Oh, wait, commas are now implicitly parenthesized, so that
> (my $a, $b, $c) = @_;
> can be written as
> my $a, $b, $c = @_;
>
Oh! I never said commas are implicitly parenthesized! That was other
proposal. I don't think it works, because
$a, $b, $c = @_;# $
Branden wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
> strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave
> the same as those.
"In general, perl does what you want -- unless what you want is
consistency." The point is that consistency is NOT the
Edward Peschko wrote:
> well, for the small fraction of people that use it, they probably are
> experienced and know to use parens to disambiguate.
No, *everyone* knows to use parens to disambiguate.
> And anyways:
> my $a, $b, $c = @_;
> not working is 'very hard to bugtrack and totally une
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > As for the -q thing, I think it is far *less* of a burden to add "use
> > strict" and "use warnings" when you're writing a big piece of code. When
> > you're writing 5 lines, every extra character counts. When you're
> > writing 500 or 5000 lines
Can we take this thread over to perl6-language-strict? Its where it
belongs. Then you can argue to your heart's content and let us know
when you've reached a conclusion.
This just isn't making sense.
Currently one has to write
my( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
And you're willing to eviscerate perl to save two keystrokes;
you say you'd be happy with either
my $x, $y, $z = @_;
or
( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
but the (consequent) fact that
$x, $y,
Simon Cozens wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> > But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
>
> Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness a
> Why with `my' I do need them? Why don't these behave the same?
Because the precedence is different.
Remember, 'my' is a lexical construct.
It does not "return" a value, and it does not
take "arguments" -- not in the runtime sense.
It applies only to literal variable symbols.
It is meaningless (
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whisp
ered:
| For the list managers: Could we have a list apart from -language, so that we
| don't bother all with this `par'-issue ??? Please? Perhaps a list that
| includes the issue on directory structure, and other issues re
John Porter wrote:
> > Having `my' with the same precedence rules as `print' for example,
>
> 'my' is not 'print', it is not like 'print', is not comparable
> to 'print'. Please stop with the bogus comparisons.
>
Agree they're different (one is compile-time, other runtime, and much more
differe
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> How about a perl6-install list? This discussion really doesn't fit into
> any of the current top level lists, so we can make a new top level and
> cover other installation issues as well. Ask, can you make this, if the
> name is agreeable.
There
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> To rehash, all this discussion should involve is the possibility of
> making "my" swallow its list args:
>my $x, $y, $z; # same as my($x, $y, $z)
> That's it. No changing the way lists and , and = work in Perl.
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:45:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
> You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
See?
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from real
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> John, settle down. None of us profess to be fantastic language designers,
> which is why we gave Larry the job. That being done, I'm not entirely sure why
> people are continuing to argue about these things. :)
You're right, of course. I should have faith that Larry
will
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> 1) be lax on warnings and strict in a script, assume strictness and
>warnings in the modules. Rationale: in a script, you really
> have an audience of one. With few exceptions, you are only
>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:33:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:48:01PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > 1) be lax on warnings and strict in a script, assume strictness and
> >warnings in the modules. Rationale: in a script, you really
> >ha
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and "Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whisp
> ered:
> | For the list managers: Could we have a list apart from -language, so that we
> | don't bother all with this `par'-issue ??? Please? Perhaps a list that
> | inclu
Edward Peschko wrote:
> And don't dismiss 1 as trivial. I personally have spent hours
> tracking down simple bugs that I otherwise would have found
> within SECONDS with 'use strict'.
Which is why, after going through this twice, I now habitually
blow in 'use strict' without a moment's thought.
(
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:26:40AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Oh, that's a terrific improvement.
> Basically you want to change (= break) the current precedence
> of the comma operator. Thank you, Mr. Language Designer.
John, settle down. None of us profess to be fantastic language designers,
w
Edward Peschko wrote:
> NOTE: to perl5 users - by default, perl is doing more up-front error checking.
> To get the old behavior, you can say 'perl -q' in front of your scripts,
Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
So chan
John Porter wrote:
> > Well, for me, it isn't useful, unless you can show me I'm wrong. At
least
> > give me an example that shows it's more useful this way.
>
> First, we must always remember that whatever we do, we can
> force explicit precedence through the addition of parentheses.
> The cases
Well, I'll try to reach to an agreement here, since this discussion is
getting pretty much pointless.
What do we know:
a) Many of us want Perl to have globals as default, what is opposed to some
that want `use strict' and `-w' turned on by default.
b) Some of us (that would be me, I think) think
John Porter wrote:
> Come on. What's so hard about knowing
> ( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables, and
> my( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables declared local.
> Answer: nothing.
>
If you see some code saying
my $a, $b, $c;
Would you say $b and $c are subject to a different scoping
At 06:47 PM 2/16/2001 -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
>I like to wrap up my argument.
>
>I recommend to use UTF-8 as the sole string encoding.
>If we end up with multiple encodings, there is absolutely
>no point for this argument.
Um, I hate to point this out, but perl isn't going to have a single strin
> > Basically, I want '-w' back as a useful tool.
>
> That's interesting, why isn't it useful now? And why is that related
> to making it the default? (I'm honestly curious)
Its because '-w' is a global switch. To wit:
--AA.pm--
my $a = undef;
print $a;
--a.p--
use AA;
my $a = undef;
pri
This is a cross-over from perl6-language.
First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm *not* arguing against
the advantages of having strict and warnings on. I turn them on for
every program I write (except strict for one-liners) and strongly
advocate that everyone else do the same. However,
I'm moving this over to perl6-language-strict.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:48:22PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Why? Its not the filename, its how its used -
>
> require("A"); # library - strict, warnings on
> use A;# library - strict, warnings on
> do "A"# li
At 05:33 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This is a cross-over from perl6-language.
Good, I love cross-overs. It's not as good as a The Tick/Eraserhead
cross-over, but it'll do.
>First off, I'd like to make it clear that I'm *not* arguing against
>the advantages of having strict and
At 10:13 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *want* a global switch. I want the ability to never have to forget to
> type
> > 'use warnings' in a package and track it down for hour upon hour. Or 'use
> > strict'.
I do
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:52:22PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> S'not about saving keystrokes, as many times as I do type the same things
> in every file; it's about giving newbies the right introduction to the
> language and providing appropriate feedback at the appropriate level of
> individua
At 09:36 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:08:20PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > But if you want P6 to be so backwards
> > compatible that the largest issues are smaller than "@", an awful lot of
> > good stuff ain't gonna make it in, it seems to me. 'Sides, w
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > Its because '-w' is a global switch.
> >
> > What about the new lexical warnings? "use wa
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Its because '-w' is a global switch.
What about the new lexical warnings? "use warnings"?
> > I'm not sure what you mean by a policy. Do you mean you want people
> > to have to say C explicitly? Do you want to
> > make it a co
Redirected to -strict to save the sanity of thousands of people who don't care.
At 03:48 PM 2/16/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Its a fine rationale, but I'm very, very loathe to implicitly split
> > Perl into two seperate languages based on what the filename is.
>
>Why? Its not the filename
At 08:41 PM 2/16/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>In the same way that I unconsciously type '-wle' in all my one-liners,
>people will write '-q'.
Not if we bury the documentation for -q somewhere devilishly difficult to
find...
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Its because '-w' is a global switch.
>
> What about the new lexical warnings? "use warnings"?
umm... that's part of what this is all about. People don't have
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:08:20PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> >Come to think of it, what language or popular compiler does have
> >run-time (not compile-time) warnings on by default?
>
> Er, Perl is loose enough that those run-time warnings substitute for only a
> part of the kind of strictness
> > But the memcmp() can not be used for UTF-32 string comparison, because
> > of endian issue.
>
> What endian issue? If you have two differently-endian strings being
> compared at the C level, you have *far* bigger design problems
> than the choice of UTF.
My argument was:
You can use memcmp(
I like to wrap up my argument.
I recommend to use UTF-8 as the sole string encoding.
If we end up with multiple encodings, there is absolutely
no point for this argument.
Benefits of UTF-8 is more compact, less encoding conversion,
more friendly to C API. UTF-16 is variable length encoding
too,
> > I have already given the counter argument. The codepoint position is
useless
> > in many cases. They should be deprecated.
>
> Uh? That doesn't make sense. Codepoint position is *exactly* what people
> expect when they use substr. When I say
>
> $a = substr($b,10);
>
> I want the 10th char
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:20:26PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> But the memcmp() can not be used for UTF-32 string comparison, because
> of endian issue.
What endian issue? If you have two differently-endian strings being
compared at the C level, you have *far* bigger design problems
than the choi
Moved to -unicode, because that's what it's *for*.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:17:03PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > substr's already been mentioned.
>
> I have already given the counter argument. The codepoint position is useless
> in many cases. They should be deprecated.
Uh? That doesn't make
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 04:51:14PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> Yes and no. You can use for eq(), but not for cmp(). On little endian
> machine, the memcmp() will first compare the least significant byte, not
> most.
We'd use a custom cmp in the vtable in that case anyway.
--
I often think I'd g
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:39:10PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> But you can not use memcmp() to compare binary order of two UTF-32
> strings on little endian machines, even both strings are using
> the same endian.
Yes, you can.
> BTW, with UTF-8, you never worry about endian issue.
*cough*. I kn
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:25:59PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> I think you already mixed the codepoint vc character. What you will get is
> 10th codepoint, not 10th character.
I think you're confused. Codepoints *are* characters. Combining characters are
taken care of as per the RFC.
> The UTF-32
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 02:39:10PM -0800, Hong Zhang wrote:
> > But you can not use memcmp() to compare binary order of two UTF-32
> > strings on little endian machines, even both strings are using
> > the same endian.
>
> Yes, you can.
Yes and no. You can use for eq(), but not for cmp(). On
> > I think you already mixed the codepoint vc character. What you will get
is
> > 10th codepoint, not 10th character.
>
> I think you're confused. Codepoints *are* characters. Combining characters
are
> taken care of as per the RFC.
If you define that way, I can agree with it. Since you still ha
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:13:07PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 06:22:45PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 08:41:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:28:36PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > > Its because '-w'
At 09:30 PM 2/16/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>The real benefit would be that the Perl program would know about all the
>methods and be able to automatically construct the vtable definitions and
>the relevant enum's, and that all the system-specific crap wouldn't show
>up in the generated C fi
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
