On Tuesday, September 26, 2000 12:54 PM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 07:08 AM 9/26/00 -0400, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >>
> >>On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Ben Tilly wrote:
> >>
> >> > Is it a conflict with the aims of Perl 6 in general that various
> >> > derivatives
YES. This is starting to make better sense and provide for some protections.
Comments inserted.
> Permissions for Redistribution of Modified Versions of the Package as Source
>
> (4) You may modify your copy of the source code of this Package in any way
> and distribute that Modified Ve
> >(b) ensure that the installation of Your non-source Modified Version
> >does not conflict in any way with an installation of the
> >Standard
> >Version, and include for each program installed by the Modified
> >Version clear documentation
CTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 8:20 PM
> Subject: RE: RFC 343 (v1) New Perl Mascot
>
>
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 23:46:44 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > [RFC 343 v1]
> >
> > A camel is a ho
> Java is one language that springs to mind that uses interface
> polymorphism. Don't let this put you off -- if we must steal something
> from Java let's steal something good.
Interface inheritance is probably the least dignified thing to steal from Java.
If we have true multiple inheritance, i
On Friday, September 29, 2000 9:31 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > > >(b) ensure that the installation of Your non-source Modified
> > > >Version
> > > >does not conflict
> > Let ActiveState make their PerlScript, PerlEX, and pseudocompiler if they
> > want, and charge whatever they want for it. But if perl is to be free, it
> > needs to be redistributable without any loopholes providing them the
> > ability to proprietarize the language itself, or make a community
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:17 AM, Tom Christiansen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
> anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
> about it,
> either. Mark my words.
Quote from Larry: "I have
On Saturday, September 30, 2000 3:13 PM, Perl6 RFC Librarian
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> A Trademark on Perl Should be Acquired in Larry Wall's Name
>
Agreed. This is one of the few ways to pr
That's the current running hope, I'll change the RFC to match it shortly.
However, since I can't realistically expect this to happen, it wouldn't make
sense to do more than suggest it as a first course of action.
On Saturday, September 30, 2000 6:48 AM, Gerrit Haase
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wr
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:21 AM, John Porter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > >
> > > By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> > > indentation to define block structure.
> >
> > What an idea! I
On Wednesday, October 04, 2000 1:21 AM, Perl6 RFC Librarian
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Exception objects and classes for builtins
>
> =head1 VERSION
>
> Maintainer: Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTE
On Wednesday, October 04, 2000 4:15 AM, Tom Christiansen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >POD, presumably. Or maybe son-of-POD; it would be nice to have better
> >support for tables and lists.
>
> We did this for the camel. Which, I remind the world, was
> written in pod.
>
> ''tom
Uh...
w
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 1:37 AM, Perl6 RFC Librarian
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Improvement needed in error messages (both internal errors and die function).
Feel free to put anything you
I am in the process of drafting a proposal, and have at a minimum split the
thread. However, thank you for pointing out which list this should go in. I'll
redirect further messages there.
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:56 AM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> It's valid to wa
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 4:02 PM, Jean-Louis Leroy [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> > The Perl-KGB-elite has got to go, and a free republic must replace
> > it.
>
> I wouldn't go as far as your entire post, neither in form nor content,
> but I do have concerns about the sociopsycho(patho)logy
I'm afraid I had a family crisis yesterday, else another RFC would have been
submitted.
Part of Perl's problems, a severe internal problem that has external (user
side) consequences, is that Perl does *not* have anyone to speak policy with,
while the community itself is submerged in issues of
Realize that you are trying to convince a group who uses POD at the command
line (no, not everybody) to use a complete markup language. We're talking about
self-commenting code, sir, not a strict documentation system with indices and
the likes in any formal sense. Even if a documentation system
> No conspiracy could be that well-oiled. Someone would have leaked it
> by now.
The community has been leaking like a sieve since July 1998. Want a complete
list?
> It's possible you're speaking of one or more of the working group chairs,
> in which case your criticism may well be valid. This, though, is one of the
> cases where you may need to cope (as a volunteer project one needs to work
> with what's available). You can also speak to folks a step or two
On Sunday, October 01, 2000 8:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> Stephen Zander wrote:
> > >>>>> "David" == David Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > David> This country (apologies to non-US citizens) was not founded
>
On Friday, October 06, 2000 11:23 AM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 10:50:06AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > I don't know it's affiliations
>
> You know that word "independent"? Should have been a give-away, but...
&
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:31 AM, John Barnette
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> D'you think it's a possibility to provide read-only access to the lists
> for interested parties?
Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of Perl 6's
giving voice to the perl commun
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 12:59 PM, Peter Buckingham
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
> > Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
> > where w
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 10:51 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
> >really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
> >of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinio
ne who sees
the danger. Relatively few people speak openly about it for fear of getting the
same beatings I get on a regular basis. Frankly I think it's important for
these guys just to realize that other people are sitting back and watching,
with unexpressed interests.
> On Tue, 10 Oct
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:33 PM, Jonathan Scott Duff
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> David Grove wrote:
> > Read-only and carefully censored lists are irrelevant to the goals of
> > Perl 6's giving voice to the perl community. They lead us right back
> > where w
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:27 PM, Simon Cozens [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Consider:
> "Public Opinion": Hey, we need Perl 6 stable in three weeks.
> Coders: But, uhm, we haven't started coding yet.
Consider:
Microsoft: We need Perl by April 15th
Head Cheese: Ok, sure
hen I expect the Perl community (at the
> > very least, one David Grove :-) to be up in arms about it.
>
> And then they could fork, and Perl would stay free. Crisis over.
>
> IT'S OPEN SOURCE.
>
> David, go understand what that means.
Simon, it's corporate co
On Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:03 PM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> I think we're talking about two different periods of development here.
>
> The immediate question facing us is how to structure software design.
> This is different from the ongoing maintenance of Perl.
>
>
On Wednesday, October 11, 2000 11:02 AM, Nathan Torkington [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> David Grove writes:
> > I'm wondering how different this is from the current setup.
>
> Currently there's the pumpking and the pumpking decides when to
> release a new versio
Isn't C# (C Sharp) a Microsoft-owned language that is (currently) available
only on Win2k (though apparently targeted for crossplatform)? After Larry said
he was thinking of making parts of Perl 6 in C#, I went on a studying rampage.
I find nothing for anything except Win2k. Can someone provide
On Wednesday, October 18, 2000 12:59 PM, Larry Wall [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> Simon Cozens writes:
> : You're learning Japanese, right? It's gotta be "toriaezu".[1] :)
>
> Yes, but if we go down that route, we're gonna end up with all the
> verbs at the end. Instead of "print @foo", we g
Ah, sorry, misunderstood. I do remember him saying it will probably be done in
C with perl as the parser, with C++ dubious.
I just got caught up in the C# research.
On Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:10 AM, Dan Sugalski [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
> At 10:30 PM 10/18/00 -0500, David Gr
Tad McClellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry to mention the code name thing again, I thought the
> whole endeavor rather silly.
>
> But I just stumbled upon the dictionary definition below, so
> I submit it for due (mis)consideration:
>
>
> pearly everlasting:
>
>n. A rhi
If there's one thing that I know about Larry, it's that he's not stupid.
Neither are the members of the perl community as silly and uninitiated as
the "perl-elite" would make them out to be. I can see _much_ more
information coming out of these RFC's than just the content of the RFC's
in a techica
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bennett Todd wrote:
> >
> > Java is crappy engineering with superb marketing,
>
> This is so wide of reality, I conclude that you don't know the
> first thing about Java.
Ok, Visual Basic then.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:42:08AM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > But what really pisses me off is that the harshest critics are people
> > who bowed out or were silent during the stage where we were setting
up
> > the RFC process.
>
> I'm try
Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article was
posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at O'Reilly...
please suggest that the article be pulled. For the company that backs perl
the most to publish something so disgustingly myopic is unconscionable.
Nat
's position.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 02:01:45PM +, David Grove wrote:
> > Absolutely and double the vulgarity. I can't imagine that the article
was
> > posted at all. Several of us (you guys) have _some_ pull at
O'
> Anyone think others are needed?
"Myopia neither equates the absence of existence of a distant object, nor
demonstrates the insanity of the non-myopic."
or, roughly translated, "Issues should be faced rather than avoided by
attacking the person who points them out."
The polite thing to do would be to catch up on the end of a dead thread
before using a several-day-old posting as a springboard to ask people to
let it go. Please catch yourself in this error in the future.
> This thread has gone on for a long time, and is starting to repeat
> itself...cou
No traffic yet, so I suppose I'll open with a couple statements and a
couple questions.
First of all, do we talk, or submit PDDs? Are we aiming for a single PDD
from this group, or a short number of them, or a short number to be
collated into one? I'm not quite clear how this works, and what we e
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> >pieces like the VM or parser. It makes sense to me to explore many
> possible
> >designs and pick and choose between them. Also,
Dan & al.,
I'm very surprised to see planning groups for api and parsing for perl6
springing up, with goals of providing RFC's in nine days. This is rather
confusing given that Larry hasn't yet (that I'm aware of) determined what
Perl6 will even look like, what, if any, new keywords will be there
Ok, so I'm not off in la-la land. See you in parser. I have a couple
things you might like...
Thanks, Dan
pete
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:17 AM 11/14/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >Dan & al.,
> >
> >I'm very surprised to se
Sorry for the crosspost (the information was requested). This is where I
got the information on the new api groups. I've subscribed to the groups
but haven't seen any traffic on them yet. I don't see any reason to
believe that this wouldn't be authentic, but if it is, then if I'm not
missing some
I'm on announce, I believe... I didn't get anything. (Internals seems like
a poor place to make than announcement.) How do I check to see that ezmlm
hasn't unsubscribed me from announce when my server was down last week for
a couple of days? It's read-only, so I can't test-post to it, and I'm not
Oops. ;-))
And I thought I was on a roll, contributing to the Perl 6 source core
thingy...
LOL
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 11:55:27AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 03:29:24AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
>
Interesting. I didn't get the announcement from there.
Out of curiosity, is majordomo deprecated?
---
I've been unable to carrry out your request: The address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
was already on the perl6-announce mailing list when I received
your request, and remains a subscriber.
Nat and I argued parts of this (I think this is included) at some length.
Actually, I think I drove him crazy getting specifics out of this.
Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:59:40PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > 6) Only a WG chair, pumpking, or one of the pr
I would, certainly. But I also think that the group as a whole would enjoy
the preview.
Kirrily "Skud" Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This coming Saturday, I'm presenting a paper on Perl 6 (the story so
> far) at the Australian Open Source Symposium.
>
> Is anyone interested in looking
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 10:37:23AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> > I'm not sure that it's possible to do this, or disirable. If Larry
wants
> > Perl to use different modes, creoles, or ways of interpreting or
> &
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 07:36 AM 11/21/00 -0500, David Grove wrote:
> >However, one thing is seriously lacking in this theory... if the
parser is
> >perl, how does the perl parse? (Sort of a woodchuck chucking wood type
of
> >thing.) Someh
> Okay, you're more confused here than I though.
I can't deny that, but at least I helped get this group talking. The
silence was deafening.
Participation feels good though, when I'm not getting yelled at for being
technically inarticulate (P5P). Maybe if we can keep up the good
attitudes, we c
Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 07:36:11AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> > > 1) The API presented to the rest of the world. This is likely one
> call,
> >
> > These are almost two separ
"Rocco Caputo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:45:50 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >AKA "The Dragon Book". You're not the only one to mention this book on
> >this list.
> >
> >IMO, this book is really thick to crawl through, and in the end, it's
> >all just theory, y
I'm still not sure where to start from a technical standpoint, so I'll
just comment and brainstorm until someone more used to this tells me
whether my common cents should be in US Dollars or South African ZAR.
Please forgive a bit of rambling, I'm not purposely off topic if I am.
Dan Sugalski <[
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:37 AM 11/21/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >Thanks for the clarifications, Simon.
> >
> >Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If we were simply feeding it perl with a single syntax, we could get
e stuff" and turns it into
pure perl before actual interpretation. I think it's simpler and may make
more sense to turn it into perl than to have each creole spit out syntax
trees. It's the difference between a bunch of little anthill add-ons
versus a bunch of big everest add-ons, whether compiled in or linked,
whether perl or api.
David Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FINITION section altogether as
a part of the PDD spec. Modern contract legalese requires this in certain
contexts so a judge and jury can have a clue "what the heck those computer
people are talking about".
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 03:30:28
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 05:07:32AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> > >From my understanding, "API" is the set of functions internal to
Perl
> and
> > PerlXS that allow C to access Perl internal structures, func
llenged as far as creating a parser/interpreter goes...
I'm basically getting in on the ground floor of a new language with people
who have done this all before, trying to comprehend major perl5 perlguts
and predefined terms (more or less specific to this purpose) in a perl6
sense. I'm not g
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:54:31AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I categorically do *NOT* want perl6-internals to turn into a basic
> course in
> > compiler design, purely for the benefit of those who know nothing at
all
> about
> > what they're t
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:54:31AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > I categorically do *NOT* want perl6-internals to turn into a basic
> course in
> > > compiler design, purely for the benefit of tho
There is here (me).
Dave Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've tried to snip as much as possible without fouling up
> attributions. If I failed, my apologies.
>
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >At 11:47 AM 11-30-2000 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> [...is there a pla
> I am slightly worried about the "career path" dead-ending at personal
> lackey,
> however. But, hey, that's why we're getting paid the big bucks, right?
I do have some concerns, but before I express them, I have a sidetrack
comment in this direction.
I have been programming in Perl since befo
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 10:08:35PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> > Be available. Don't give a task, then disappear until its due,
accept
> it,
> > then disappear again. Answer questions. Check the work. Give
feedback.
>
> This is very
. Tweten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today around 11:06am, David Grove hammered out this masterpiece:
>
> : Does brainbench still have free tests for Perl? Maybe that's
> : something to look into, and maybe since it's a purely volunteer
> : effort if they are now c
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Dec 1969, David Grove wrote:
> > In order to serve and assist future "apprentices" or maintainers, the
> > communication between the two should be public (unless private on
> > pur
Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Fink wrote:
> >
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> newsgroups
> B. The "master" / "apprentice" relationship is just that - it depends
>how the people in question relate. As a potential "master" I am all
>too aware that I am not skilled in teaching - usually because I
don't
>know what is obvious vs what is obscure - so anyone "taught" by me
>
> > will have to do some proofreading (also tedious) no matter what. If
the
>
> Bah. *I* like proofreading. Certainly for typos and English
construction
> if I can forget everything other than the last 2 sentences I read.
Masters have no reason to spellcheck. I mean they'll have to proofread
> >Open Source Writers Group (http://oswg.org/) is a good starting point.
> >I'm subscribed to their mailing list. I can think of a couple of
other
> >good places to try, too, but they're a bit politically incorrect to
> >mention in this context :-/
>
> Who on earth would be considered poli
Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:28:31AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > Anyways, that's just one suggestion. Do I have any idea where to find
> > these mythical people? No, unfortunately. Perhaps some feelers on
> > newsgroups might be a good p
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Keeping in mind the input is source, and
> the output is a syntax tree)
Will you be my hero?
Or
Your clarity is sincerely appreciated.
Ok, _from_ the books on the reading list, I'm seeing no precedent for a
parser/lexer/tokenizer that uses multipl
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Simon (?) brought up the problem that we might end up with a
monolithic
> > beastie
>
> I don't recall saying anything about it being a problem. :)
Ok, it scared somebody. That much I remember.
> > Reading what you say, "parser/lexer/tokenizer"
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 12:43:15PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 01:20:07AM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > > I'm assuming we're all sort of thinking that input is certainly
> > > [good stuff]
>
> Thanks, but you were su
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> > Because what is the parser/lexer/tokenizer parsing? Perl? Pythonic?
> > Javanese? All of them? Thinking of just the parser as a single entity
> > seems to me to be hea
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I imagine that each supported language will likely have its own
prefered
> parsing strategy. Some will be perfectly lex-yacc-able. Some will be
> more like Perl than that and would benefit from some hooks into Perl's
> existing parser. I think we jus
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > For my part, at least, I've been thinking of something either
LISP-ish
> > or very simple parameter setting/checking (like stuff in, say, your
> > average .rc file with a little control flow thrown in) wh
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> > Ok, my C's rather rusty, but are we interested in parsing that?
>
> Yes. I've heard people talk about a C frontend. Will it ever see the
> light? I don'
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> possible, right? Are you saying you don't think we should make it
> possible for someone to write a C parser for Perl?
For the full language spec, I don't think it's attainable, and honestly
don't see the reason for it within the context of Perl. It do
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That sounds too complex for what seems like a more simple solution.
When
> > you say "turn simple 'languages' into perl", that's what Dan's told
me is
> > my source filter.
>
> Correct. perl-byacc is a source filter. It takes in yacc source an
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issues of 'use Python' or 'use Pythonish' are a quite different
issue.
> I don't think anyone believes it ought to be easy to *write* the
Pythonish
> module.
I do.
That's the problem. This is a nearly ubiquitously desired objective
(writing th
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:50 -0700 (MST), Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> >I think the problems with this that were raised in the past are:
> > * parsing partial source
> > * does this mean that the parser has to reparse the whole sourcefile
> > ever
Nicholas Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 11:30:09AM +0000, David Grove wrote:
> >
> > Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > But, the gist of this post is: we don't want to loose the
usefulness
> of
>
Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
[snip]
> > _Perl_ _within_ _a_ _Perl_ _context_ _and_ _for_ _Perl_ _purposes_,
>
> Feeling a little hostile to the rest of the programming world? You're
> sounding almost
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:29 PM 12/18/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:
>
> >Sam Tregar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
> > >
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, David Grove wrote:
>
> >
> > Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> I think you misunderstand. I think it should be very easy to *use* a
> hypothetical Pythonish modul
Kirrily Skud Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 11:05:43AM -0800, Steve Fink wrote:
> > David Grove wrote:
> >
> > > Also, as far as documentation goes, I think it _should_ be written
by
> > > apprentices, so that non-maste
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Liceses. Bletch.
> Don't blame the licenses, blame the copyright law that makes them an
> unfortunate necessity in many cases.
And the thieves who steal the intellectual property and claim it as their
own turf in the first place.
What are we ta
"Bryan C. Warnock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > But, but... 0.21 is *not* 'point twenty one', it's 'point two one',
> > otherwise you get into weirdness with: .21 and .210 being spoken as
> > 'point twenty one' and 'point two hundred (?:and)? ten'
This was the subject of a list and an RFC. I'd hope not to see what we
worked hard to come up with not go to waste, guys and gals. We came up
with a "least of all evils" solution, I think, and I feel very strongly
that not protecting Perl from outright theft, especially using very iffy
licenses al
I have an idea. Send that japanese to Larry and have him translate it.
However he translates it, it's official.
p
Jeff Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 09:42:12PM -0500, Brian Finney wrote:
> > > say we start with this number
> > > 123,456,789
> > >
> > > one
"Ben Tilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "John van V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, this the ~only~ obvious thing here. What I
> >just learned from the GNU/FSF/UWIN/MinGW issue is that
> >perl ~is~ legally defined as an operating system.
>
> Defined by who? I am curious her
> You know having you not have a clue who you are talking to
> is getting really annoying. Hello David, my name is Ben
> Tilly. I am the guy who flamed Tom Christiansen on p5p
[...]
> In any case if you want action on that it is better to
> start by saying that and not take threads that
I'll retract partially. The precise reference I had in mind was in fact on
the GNU site linked from Debian.org, my mistake, although I've definitely
seen overwhelming GNUism among Debians. Here is a quick question as I
asked it on UnderNET and got an immediate and definite response (I'm
eapoe):
u
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 10:43:36AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote:
> > No. It was to have Windows support built-in to the standard
> distribution.
>
> I see.
>
> I notice that you still haven't told me which part of clause three they
> actually kept.
Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001, David Grove wrote:
>
> > 1. What if a company, ANY company, whether through collusion or by
any
> > other means, historically has had, currently has, or in the future
will
> > have, the ability
1 - 100 of 199 matches
Mail list logo
