On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:58:50 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>I was using .pas and .pac. Gotta think about 8.3ness, unfortunately.
The "8" might not be that relevant nowadays, but the "3" still matters.
On Win32, file extensions get cut off after 3 characters. So a ".html"
file is actually the same a
>On Win32, file extensions get cut off after 3 characters. So a ".html"
>file is actually the same as a ".htm" file, I think.
This isn't true
George Bouris
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it
> can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6?
I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing generic
redirectors. I wrote a frame system that allows instances to
Ken Fox wrote:
> The only thing I'd like to change is to make &foo a tail call instead
> of a normal function call. But I guess that would *really* confuse
> people.
You can, with C< goto &$foo; >.
Problem is, it's *slower* (in p5 anyway) than the plain sub call.
--
John Porter
A word spoken i
Ken Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it
> > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6?
>
> I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing generic
> redirectors.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:50:35PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> > *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
>
> I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actually
> looks clearer than the code I'm usi
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 06:02:50PM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> > > *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
>
> goto does screw up caller... so I wouldn't say
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:58:00AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> You can, with C< goto &$foo; >.
> Problem is, it's *slower* (in p5 anyway) than the plain sub call.
By only 10%. Let's keep things in proportion here.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
P
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:48:55AM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > I can't think of any reason why this feature is useful anymore, and it
> > can be a really confusing behavior, so what say we kill it in Perl 6?
>
> I've always thought is was pretty useful for implementing ge
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actually
looks clearer than the code I'm using. (Although with re-directors
we want to minimize cost so the 10% p
From: Ken Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Any time you want to implicitly pass @_, you can just as easily
> > *explicitly* pass it or use goto.
goto does screw up caller... so I wouldn't say *anytime*
> I never thought of using goto actually. "goto &$method;" actua
11 matches
Mail list logo
