[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PIT - Perl Intergration Testers
Alan Burlison
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and Alan Burlison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
whispered:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| PIT - Perl Intergration Testers
|
| Alan Burlison
Not to pick on Alan, God knows he's been doing us all a real favor lately
with the leaktest stuff. But can we please stop crossposting
On Monday 19 February 2001 22:18, Edward Peschko wrote:
> 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 future.. ;-)
Yes, "forgive me father, for I'm about to sin
To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
document for the PDD process.
That means one of five things:
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01126.html
Surely, if the name of a mailing list can generate so much traffic, then
someone must have something to say, no? I'm not
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 09:05:57AM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
> document for the PDD process.
Uhm, you just turned meta-discussion into meta-meta-discussion, and you wonder
why people aren't commenting? :)
Seriously,
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:49:45AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:17:56 -0600, "David L. Nicol"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "currying" used in a fascinating context: an experimental
> language in which
>
> http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/#tut
In that vein, perh
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
> document for the PDD process.
>
> That means one of five things:
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01126.html
Sounded fine to me, but since I'm not one of the Powers, I didnt co
Regarding comments in code:
Chopping and misquoting wildly
Jarkko Hietaniemi said:
* I would define a relatively strict and standard way to do this so that
the documentation can be extracted out.
* lets avoid a markup-up flamewar
Simon Cozens said:
* I'd like to see Perl 6 written as a li
> Tolkien quotes are mandatory?
>
> perl5's globals.c malloc.c perlio.c perly.c universal.c xsutils.c
> definitely fail then.
Sounds like some urgent patches need submitting to p5p ;-)
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 10:49, David Mitchell wrote:
> Regarding comments in code:
> 2. Is this the time and place to discuss it?
Certainly before we actually begin coding
>
> 3. Should the result of the discusssion be a PDD?
Yes.
>
> 5. Do *all* these comments need to be extractable
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:49:44PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> 4. Are we all agreed that in addition to anything else (eg rfc281), at
> least some of the standard commentary should appear actually within the
> src file itself?
quote from someone recently "separate documentation is no documenta
At 09:05 AM 2/20/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>To date, I've received a whopping zero comments on PDD 0, the defining
>document for the PDD process.
>
>That means one of five things:
>http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01126.html
>
>Nat, Dan: PDD 0 is also still at the Proposed level (even though it
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:53PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> o Will experiences from Ruby be assimilated back into Perl?
>
> o What impact will C# and .NET have on Perl 6? Don't forget
>Larry's required reading recommendation:
>http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 11:22, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> D'oh! Yes, mark it as Approved, or whichever step is past developing.
(I'm
> a little scattered at the moment, so I don't have the doc handy)
Actually, now that I've been updating this, I'm going to hold it at
development for a little wh
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> >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
> > And what about us poor semi-literates who've never heard of Yojimbo ???
> > If we can't go with Tolkien, I'd vote for Pratchett, 'cause *everyone*'s
> > read him :-)
>
> Adams rather than Pratchett, I'd think. :)
But Pratchet has 20+ books to his credit, so we need never run out of quotes
:-
At 05:57 PM 2/20/2001 +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > Do we want to go with Tolkein quotes for perl 6 and, if so, who wants to
> > put together a list of good ones? It's been ages since I've read the
> books,
> > and I'm likely to pull quotes from other places anyway. (Usagi Yojimbo
> > strikes
> Douglas Adams does seem rather more appropriate a source of quotes
> for software (anyone's, alas) than Pratchett.
But Adams already has a software company.
-Hao
David Mitchell wrote:
> 4. Are we all agreed that in addition to anything else (eg rfc281), at
> least some of the standard commentary should appear actually within the
> src file itself?
s/at least some/most, if not all/
> 5. Do *all* these comments need to be extractable, or only ones related
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 19:17:25 + Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:43:11PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > My name (Merijn) is *from* Tolkien's dutch translation, so I'm a little biases
> > if I state: "Stick with Tolkien". Well, I'm of to Mordor now ...
>
>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 07:43:11PM +0100, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> My name (Merijn) is *from* Tolkien's dutch translation, so I'm a little biases
> if I state: "Stick with Tolkien". Well, I'm of to Mordor now ...
http://www.prembone.com/mythtakes/shiresong.html
--
At 07:52 PM 2/20/2001 +0200, Roman M. Parparov wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:57:10PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > Do we want to go with Tolkein quotes for perl 6 and, if so, who wants to
> > > put together a list of good ones? It's been ages since I've read the
> books,
> > > and I'm l
At 06:18 PM 02-20-2001 +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>As long as Terry Pratchett writes books faster than perl consumes quotes.
>Based on the fact that he's still very alive, we aren't in danger yet.
True... And he has some very good quotes.
>However, Larry has already commented on the danger of
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:18:31 + Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:06:49PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > > And what about us poor semi-literates who've never heard of Yojimbo ???
> > > > If we can't go with Tolkien, I'd vote for Pratchett, 'cause *everyo
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:06:49PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > > And what about us poor semi-literates who've never heard of Yojimbo ???
> > > If we can't go with Tolkien, I'd vote for Pratchett, 'cause *everyone*'s
> > > read him :-)
> >
> > Adams rather than Pratchett, I'd think. :)
>
> B
At 04:50 PM 2/20/2001 +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > Tolkien quotes are mandatory?
> >
> > perl5's globals.c malloc.c perlio.c perly.c universal.c xsutils.c
> > definitely fail then.
>
>Sounds like some urgent patches need submitting to p5p ;-)
Do we want to go with Tolkein quotes for perl 6 an
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:57:10PM +, David Mitchell wrote:
> > Do we want to go with Tolkein quotes for perl 6 and, if so, who wants to
> > put together a list of good ones? It's been ages since I've read the books,
> > and I'm likely to pull quotes from other places anyway. (Usagi Yojimbo
> Do we want to go with Tolkein quotes for perl 6 and, if so, who wants to
> put together a list of good ones? It's been ages since I've read the books,
> and I'm likely to pull quotes from other places anyway. (Usagi Yojimbo
> strikes me as a good place to yank from, as does Zot!, but Pratchet
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:32 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> >
> >Hmm, I think of Python as more Babbit than Mahler. Perl is ... John Cage?
>
> Would that mean that perl 6 corresponds to 4'33"? (If I have the composers
> right...)
As someone else pointed out, you
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> valuable and interesting. (aside: Python is Mahler. Discuss.) So while we may
Hmm, I think of Python as more Babbit than Mahler. Perl is ... John Cage?
-dave
/*==
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==*/
At 01:05 PM 2/20/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Tuesday 20 February 2001 11:22, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > D'oh! Yes, mark it as Approved, or whichever step is past developing.
>(I'm
> > a little scattered at the moment, so I don't have the doc handy)
>
>Actually, now that I've been updating
At 01:32 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> > valuable and interesting. (aside: Python is Mahler. Discuss.) So while
> we may
>
>Hmm, I think of Python as more Babbit than Mahler. Perl is ... John Cage?
Would that mean that perl 6 corresponds to
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:33:48PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:32 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> >On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
> >
> > > valuable and interesting. (aside: Python is Mahler. Discuss.) So while
> > we may
> >
> >Hmm, I think of Python as more Babbit than
At 05:27 PM 2/19/01 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type
> >
> > GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
> > bar => \my $bar);
>
>If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for
4.036. I can only find man
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
whispered
> :
> | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
> | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
>
> I don't know that I would s
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has
> gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly
> perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the
> difference.
Can you give me an example of t
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:49:13AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> 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.
And I'm thowing (up :)
Graham.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >
> > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
> > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
> > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probab
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you
when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code
it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish
code, others might say is "horribly wrong".
--
John Porter
People call it "Soak Testing" when they test electronics don't they?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]?
nah
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen P. Potter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, Febr
Simply Hao wrote:
> > Douglas Adams does seem rather more appropriate a source of quotes
> > for software (anyone's, alas) than Pratchett.
>
> But Adams already has a software company.
And Sirius pioneered the GPP in Perl 6.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> autovivification saying:
>
The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of autoviv.
> Hence I'd say that @foo[$bar] has NO INTRINSIC VALUE whatsoever
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:43, Peter Scott wrote:
> I suggest that we clearly delineate the RFCs which were pre-deadline from
> the ones that are post-deadline. The advantage to having the original
> deadline was that it motivated many of us to get off our butts and fish
or
> cut bait. I
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 04:58:11PM -0800, Matthew Cline wrote:
> What's the URL for the RFC archive?
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
Z.
Alan Burlison wrote:
> I've attached the HTML
Well it was there when I sent it... does this list strip attachments or
something?
Here is is as badly-formatted text - sorry!
Alan Burlison
Appendix A: How Sun WorkShop Memory Monitor Works
Memory management in C/C++ is both time consuming an
Documentation excerpt:
With Sun WorkShop Memory Monitor, you can program without calling free()
or delete. Determining when to call free() or delete is difficult.
Studies indicate that 30% to 40% of programmer time is spent on memory
management in C or C++ programs. Failing to release memory cau
What's the URL for the RFC archive?
Thanks in advance.
--
Matthew Cline| Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | you were a member of Congress. But I repeat
| myself. -- Mark Twain
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:25:10AM +, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Shame it only works with the Sun compilers.
See also Boehm's garbage collector, which is rather more portable:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/
"The collector uses a mark-sweep algorithm. It provides incremental
> >
> > Can you give me an example of the former?
> > I can't think of any off the top of my head.
>
> Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
>
> If part of Perl's breeding is autovivication and interpretation of undef as
> 0 or "" in the appropriate context, why should
> > RFC 362
> > ---
> ...
> > The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; it should be an
> > adaptive process that should last the entire development cycle of perl6 and
> > perhaps after.
>
> Should is a very dangerous word.
its a very useful word too sometimes... ;-)
>
At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>
>I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
I've been thinking since I sent my las
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:47:58AM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Monday 19 February 2001 22:18, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:15:56PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>
> I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
How about two lists?
Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> be a new one (perl-pdd)?
I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
Nat
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> 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
> th
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> >How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
>
> Sounds good to me.
Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria? PDD 0 describes
an acceptable baseline on
At 01:36 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 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
We lost two of three *and* I missed actual discussion. It must not be my
night. :-)
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 20:32, Adam Turoff wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 05:42:01PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> > >How should the submission pro
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>
> I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> for clues.
>
> How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
Can you confirm the actual submission address? Are we using perl-pdd? And
did we want to make th
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:32:07PM -0500, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > >How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
> > Sounds good to me.
> Any additional constraints on acceptance criteria?
There is an *expectation* that people will not file PPDs as PPDs unless
they have been agreed up
At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> actually
> > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
> > 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implement
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:51, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Honestly, the PDDs are for the stuff that was implemented, not the stuff
> that was decided. Or, more clearly, PDDs describe the implementation or
> proposed implementation at the internals level. RFCs are for
language-level
> features.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:36, Edward Peschko wrote:
> Ok, fair enough. I think that perl should have a two-tiered process
though, and
> it should be ongoing and two tiered.
I may be slow, but I make mistakes.
Yes, I've changed my mind. I now think this is a good idea.
>
> Bryan Warnock
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 18:17, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Ultimately, I think we're going to need at least three different
> >types of documentation:
> >
> > * internals design documents (PDDs)
> > * language design documents (PLDs?)
> > * change requests, once we've got something to change (PC
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 06:17:18PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski writes:
> > > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> > actually
> > > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RF
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> >
> >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
>
> I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we mig
At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
>> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
>> > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
>>
>>I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of th
At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or
> will there
> > > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> > >
> > >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect the new use of the list. Dan?
>
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will there
> >> > be a new one
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Edward Peschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: Re: RFC 362 - revisiting the RFC process (was Warnings, strict, and
CPAN)
> > > ..we're waiting
> > > for Larr
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:30, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or will
there
> > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> >
> >I'm in favour of renaming to reflect th
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:58:03PM -0500, Bryan C . Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 20:32, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > For example, I doubt that we want or need three competing PDDs on
> > Async I/O developing in the Standard track, but multiple PDDs on
> > the same topic would be welcome
Dan Sugalski writes:
> I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might actually
> want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
> 'external' things, and PDD for the actual internals implementation of things.
Ultimately, I think we're going to need at l
At 04:43 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> > >> > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-r
Yikes!
Altough it does not appear in the text of RFC 141, your idea to
keep all topics open indefintely, and Get Everything Done Right
No Matter How Long It Takes were certainly talked about in September.
> RFC 362
> ---
...
> The RFC process should not have had an artificial deadline; i
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful.
Sometimes.
> > Sometimes it's not. And that's fine.
>
> No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of
> problems. If you get 1450 'use of
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> >
> > I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > for clues.
> >
> > How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
>
> Can you confirm the actual submissio
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> > autovivification saying:
>
> The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of
> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
> changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
> that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well,
> we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
82 matches
Mail list logo
