Steve Fink writes:
> But that's really just shifting the burden to the receiving end, which
> will now have to filter P5..P(5+L1-1), P3[0..] into the appropriate
> local variables. So what would be even easier, and probably just as
> fast, would be to say that unprototyped functions pass *all* of t
Time to clean up! How are Windows builds doing these days? Looking at
the tinderbox, it looks like we've got a Debian PPC, a FreeBSD, and an
x86 Linux, but nothing "interesting". And all broken by some jerk who
didn't update the MANIFEST.
Oh, wait. That was me.
By the way, Dan convinced me that t
I'm not sure how to use the current pdd03's calling conventions to
implement what I want right now. Let's consider Perl6:
sub f ($a, $b) { ... }
f(1, 2);
&f(1, 2);
(I'm not sure if that is correct Perl6 code -- what I mean is that I
call f once with a perl-level prototype, and once without.
On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 12:50 , Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 09:55:48PM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:
To be clearer: concat_dirnames("b", "/foo") == error.
As long as concat_dirnames() will be taught to divine whether its
arguments
are absolute paths or relative p
On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 09:55:48PM +0300, Vladimir Lipskiy wrote:
> > To be clearer: concat_dirnames("b", "/foo") == error.
>
> As long as concat_dirnames() will be taught to divine whether its arguments
> are absolute paths or relative paths, it could easily rotate its arguments
> so the above-m
