On Thu 17 May 2001 00:33, Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2) If the language is so big that you can't hold all of its
> > features in your head, then those extra features might as well not
> > exist.
>
> I disagree. I don't hold all of perl5 in my head. Formats? They're
>
On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* know to be productive
> is increasing. Either that
Hmmm...ok, on thinking about it, I generally agree with you.
There is only one point that I would debate (and, as you'll see, there's
a solution for that one, too):
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Dave Storrs writes:
> > 1) One of the great strengths of Perl is th
Dave Storrs writes:
> While it may be true that beginners don't need to use a particular
> feature--or even know about it--how will they know that until they have
> studied it?
Documentation. A curriculum, roadmap, suggested path, whatever. Nate
Wiger's working on a man page to explain
LOL!
No bias there then Nat :-)
Mike
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan Torkington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: Perl, the new generation
> Stephen P. Potter writes:
> > It seems to me that recently (the last two years
On Thu 17 May, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 11:58:07AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
> > It's not so much that Perl shouldn't have data structures or modules.
> > I think what Stephen is saying (and he's not the only one) is that
> > the bare minimum amount of Perl you *must* kno
Any ideas on how to handle this with the 'is' keyword? I was reading the
slashdot comments to Exegesis II, and this seemed to be the one issue that had
merit. A couple of the posters bemoaned the fact that they were debugging PL/I
about 25 years ago, and had code that depended on some obscure pro
Ed wrote:
> Any ideas on how to handle this with the 'is' keyword? I was
> reading the slashdot comments to Exegesis II, and this seemed to be
> the one issue that had merit. A couple of the posters bemoaned the
> fact that they were debugging PL/I about 25 years ago, and had code
On Fri 18 May, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> Ed wrote:
>
>
>> Can 'undef' valued thingys have properties
>
> Yes.
>
>> and functions?
>
> No.
>
Why not?
Richard
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
