Jerome Quelin writes:
> On 04/11/22 07:14 -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > Looks great to me -- I'll switch things around to (pardon the pun) match.
> > They'll become "P6GE::compile" (compiler sub) and "P6GE::Match", with
> > a note that P6GE::compile is still subject to change.
>
> Well, sin
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:27:18PM +0100, Jerome Quelin wrote:
> On 04/11/22 07:14 -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> > Looks great to me -- I'll switch things around to (pardon the pun) match.
> > They'll become "P6GE::compile" (compiler sub) and "P6GE::Match", with
> > a note that P6GE::compile i
On 04/11/22 07:14 -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> Looks great to me -- I'll switch things around to (pardon the pun) match.
> They'll become "P6GE::compile" (compiler sub) and "P6GE::Match", with
> a note that P6GE::compile is still subject to change.
Well, since we're nitpicking conventions an
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 07:14:11AM -0700, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:49:48AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > It's likely that the p6ge_compile should be in P6GE, and that P6GEMatch
> > should be P6GE::Match (that is, [ "P6GE", "Match" ]).
> >
> > Anyone disagree?
>
> Loo
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:49:48AM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > Should the compilation sub for p6g3 be in the root namespace as it is
> > currently, or moved to, say, a "p6ge" namespace?
>
> I doubt we should be taking up the users' precious namespace with things
> that aren't standardly prefixe
William Coleda writes:
> Should the compilation sub for p6g3 be in the root namespace as it is
> currently, or moved to, say, a "p6ge" namespace?
I doubt we should be taking up the users' precious namespace with things
that aren't standardly prefixed.
It's likely that the p6ge_compile should be
