I originally starting writing this as a bit of a joke, then I thought
perhaps I should submit it as a serious suggestion. Anyone violently
against or in favour? Is this even an issue that should go in a PDD?
Does anyone care? Should I return to my box now?
Dave M.
===
As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
-- Johan
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:13:02PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:37:48AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > Hey, let's extend pod! Hey, let's use XML! Hey, let's use SGML! Hey,
> > let's use XHTML! Hey, let's use lout! Hey, ...
>
> Can we take this to perl6-trivial
Not a joke, I find this to be a very valuable rule. No comments,
no check-ins.
I would define a relatively strict and standard way to do this so that
the documentation can be extracted out.
References: see perlapi and perlintern in the current development releases.
A related matter is that curr
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:17:17AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I would define a relatively strict and standard way to do this so that
> the documentation can be extracted out.
I'd like to see Perl 6 written as a literate program, but that's probably
the axe I need to grind. :) Seriously, th
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 02:27:06PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:17:17AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > I would define a relatively strict and standard way to do this so that
> > the documentation can be extracted out.
>
> I'd like to see Perl 6 written as a literat
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 08:37:48AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Hey, let's extend pod! Hey, let's use XML! Hey, let's use SGML! Hey,
> let's use XHTML! Hey, let's use lout! Hey, ...
Can we take this to perl6-trivial-flamewars-markup-language, please? :)
--
"He was a modest, good-humor
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:47:12 +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
>As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
You guys (=plural) are nuts. So much bickering over such a tiny
irrelevant detail.
But anyway, if you want a clear and explicit name, why not
"smoketesters". Nothing to do with to
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:46:11PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> This actually came as a side-track to something else I was doing which was to
> make some subroutines appear like builtins; (available from all packages)
> I'll put Sub::Versive on CPAN when I've done *that*.
It's up. Enjoy.
--
Use
[ Cc: perl6-language, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
Yaphet,
As you may be aware, I've been a bit absent from p6-language lately, as
I've been moving to Canada and rather busy. So I apologise for not
having brought this up earlier, which I really should have done as
Perl 6 Language working group chair and
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think that:
>
> > >
> > > my $a, $b, $c;
> > >
> > > should be
Incidentally, I just implemented pre- and post- handlers on subroutines
in pure Perl 5, without any changes to the language. Interesting, huh?
sub foo { print "Bar\n"; }
append_to_sub {print "After!\n"} &foo; # Perl 5.6.x (&\&) syntax
append_to_sub {print "After!\n"}, \&foo; # Perl <5.6 syntax
f
"currying" used in a fascinating context: an experimental
language in which
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/#tut
everything is a unary function.
Multiple-argument functions are defined in such a way that
the function takes the first argument and returns a functio
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 01:17:56PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> "currying" used in a fascinating context: an experimental
> language in which
>
> http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/#tut
Oh, nooooOOO!! Those with small children, heart conditions or a
weak stomach,
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Incidentally, I just implemented pre- and post- handlers on subroutines
> in pure Perl 5, without any changes to the language. Interesting, huh?
Yes. And the modules on CPAN that already do this are interesting too.
--
John Porter
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:00:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Incidentally, I just implemented pre- and post- handlers on subroutines
> > in pure Perl 5, without any changes to the language. Interesting, huh?
>
> Yes. And the modules on CPAN that already do this are inte
At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>RFC 362
>---
>
>=head1 TITLE
>
>The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The only reason
things have paused (and it is a pause, not a stop) is that we're waiting
for Larry
Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> Some sort of simple markup embedded within the C comments. Hey, let's
> extend pod! Hey, let's use XML! Hey, let's use SGML! Hey, let's use
> XHTML! Hey, let's use lout! Hey, ...
Either run pod through a pod puller before the C preprocessor gets to
the code, or f
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > > As an active non-sm
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
Likewise. What's wrong with builders?
> -- Johan
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is '
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
>
> Likewise. What's wrong with builders?
Same here. Testers?
--
H.Merijn Brand
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:40:01AM -0800, Jonathan Atzger wrote:
>
> If I were a fundamentalist Christian, would it be
> right for me to complain about Tolkein quotes buried
> in the Perl source code on the grounds that they
> offend my personal beliefs?
What are you suggesting here? God doesn't
Sigh. That's right. Let's start this off by being
politically correct. We don't want any humor creeping
in here.
--- Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different
name.
>
> -- Johan
__
Do You Yah
--- Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different
name.
>
> -- Johan
I don't mean to be rude, but what does this have to do
with Perl? How many times must worthwhile projects
break down because people start to allow bickering and
irrelevancies to
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > > As
At 15:45 + 2001.02.19, Tim Bunce wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
>> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03
I agree with Johan...
Fabio.
-Original Message-
From: Johan Vromans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Discussion
> > > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
> > >
> > > Likewise. What's wrong with builders?
> >
> > Same here. Testers?
>
> perl-builders?
I vote for perl-builders
&Vadim;
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:50:04AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> At 15:45 + 2001.02.19, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:03:00AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko H
jezz, this is nutso. the term smokers that schwern chose refers to
smoking code as in testing it to see if it blows up in a blaze of flame
and smoke. in the hardware world powering up a box or power supply for
the first time is known as a smoke test (you don't want to see any smoke
then). the nam
No. This is silly. End of discussion.
PS I'm also an active non-smoker.
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 04:01:25PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
> >
> > Likewise.
abigail [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quoth:
*>
*>What are you suggesting here? God doesn't like elves? There's no place
*>in heaven for hobbits? Everyone is equal in the face of God, except
*>dwarves? Christ doesn't wash the feet of trolls? Jesus didn't die so
*>Gollums sins could be forgiven?
People hag
As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
Speaking of which... apologies in advance for cross-posting this, but I wanted
to get the largest audience possible... I won't do it again. At least not in the
forseeable fut
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> Hi, it's me again, the guy who won't shut up about exception handling.
> I'm trying,
I'm catching.
--
"Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God."
I think "defined" should be altered so that it only looks like a function,
but in effect alters the tests being made by the thing that is looking at it.
if (defined $x){ # slower than if ($x){ # or if($x or defined($x))
could be made faster by propagating the "defined" question up the
As much as I'd like to respond to some of these points, I'll refrain from it
now, I'll let my RFCs speak for themselves.
Speaking of which... apologies in advance for cross-posting this, but I wanted
to get the largest audience possible... I won't do it again. At least not in the
forseeable fut
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:14:52AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > Yes. And the modules on CPAN that already do this are interesting too.
>
> Oh, bother. Oh well, I've got builtinify (which was actually the point of the
> exercise) and they haven't, so I'm happy. :)
Something like Function::Over
"H.Merijn Brand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 08:49:04 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 03:47:12PM +0100, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > > As an active non-smoker, I'd appreciate a different name.
> >
> > Likewise. What's wrong w
39 matches
Mail list logo
