On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> First-Class CGI Support
Freezing within two days doesn't leave much space for comments and or
objections does it?
I'
Robert Mathews wrote:
>
> > Parse the CGI GET/POST request, returning CGI variables into %CGI
> > (regardless of the source) in an un-HTTP escaped fashion
>
> How are you going to handle multiple values for the same parameter?
> With CGI.pm, you can say
> @values = $q->param("foo");
>
> Are y
At 07:53 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > >It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
> > >calculation was in a 'no taint' block.
> >
> > Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed
> > through a "no tai
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
> >calculation was in a 'no taint' block.
>
> Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed
> through a "no taint" block doesn't make it any more trustworthy. Tainting
>
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> It has nothing to do with improving the syntax though, because everything
> in use English is a variable that serves as a reference to some other
> variable.
Yes, and that's why I really think it's a waste of time. ;-)
> > I'm not vehemently opposed to "use English"... B
At 07:09 PM 9/27/00 -0400, James Mastros wrote:
>From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM
> > 'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the
> > rules for that should stay in effect. What
The story so far:
On September 13 Jarkko professed a desire for
"a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but with some minimal extra
typing
I could mark a scalar or an array to be expanded as in qq()." [1]
Seeing this as being especially useful for those of us creating comma
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:11:30PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Yes, but perhaps a little bit of both. Truthfully, I've always seen long
> alternatives as useless bloat, not used widely over the long term. Once
> people learn the shortcuts, they use them.
>
> Expunging "use English" may will impr
> > My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> > the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> > number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
> > guts to write that RFC just yet. ;-)
>
> Are you talking about th
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >
> > My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> > the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> > number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
> the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
> number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
> guts to w
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
> and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
[snip]
> I've yet to understand why I'd *want* to use English regularly; so far as
> I can tell, it has essentially no benefit
* Nathan Wiger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28 Sep 2000 05:33]:
> Philip Newton wrote:
> > > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have
> > > %HEADERS instead that does such auto-formatting?
> >
> > In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are
> > unordered, and if you wan
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nathan Wiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM
> 'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the
> rules for that should stay in effect. What they should alter instead is
> perl's response to tain
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... and don't know use English. Why can't they learn to use it?
Why can't the new users of Perl learn the real variable names?
I guess I don't buy the argument that the real names are harder to learn.
Most of them have fairly useful mnemonics, you s
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I have a very serious problem with use English, namely that it makes Perl
> code much more difficult to read and maintain for people who know Perl.
> Writing something that's marginally easier to understand for a beginner
> and harder to understand for an expert doesn't st
From: "Adam Turoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Really, I don't see why we can't
> > just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
>
> Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
> pragmas are compiled.
Umm, perh
Russ Allbery wrote:
> I have a very serious problem with use English, namely that it makes Perl
> code much more difficult to read and maintain for people who know Perl
... and don't know use English. Why can't they learn to use it? Are
you saying that nothing is worth knowing unless the oldste
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
>> How many people really "use English" other than beginners?
> I would use it, but I heard a nasty rumor that it incurs the same
> penalty as using $' and such. I try to avoid too much line noise in
> code that has to be maintain
> Parse the CGI GET/POST request, returning CGI variables into %CGI
> (regardless of the source) in an un-HTTP escaped fashion
How are you going to handle multiple values for the same parameter?
With CGI.pm, you can say
@values = $q->param("foo");
Are you going to make the values of %CGI list
Webmaster wrote:
> What would really be nice here is an C function, similar to the
> scalar version, that returns the index of the matching entry in a list. For
> instance:
>
> my $n=0;
> foreach (@items){
> print "Found It at position $n!\n" if /$seek/;
> $n++;
> }
> Could be replaced
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> How many people really "use English" other than beginners?
I would use it, but I heard a nasty rumor that it incurs the same
penalty as using $' and such. I try to avoid too much line noise in
code that has to be maintained. At least -r has an easy mnemonic. Some
of the p
At 12:52 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > >Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
> > >pragmas are compiled.
> >
> > 'no taint' does make sense, though 'use taint' might not except to locally
> > undo 'no taint'.
>
>Actually, from my ta
At 03:35 PM 9/27/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
>Piers Cawley wrote:
> >
> > You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> > parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> > anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> > what's going on.
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> >Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
> >pragmas are compiled.
>
> 'no taint' does make sense, though 'use taint' might not except to locally
> undo 'no taint'.
Actually, from my talks with Larry both on and off-list about this, he
convince
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> Perl is English-like. And sometimes in English parentheses *are* necessary to
> increase both meaning and readability, as your own message proves.
That's rather disingenuous, since perl does not use parens for
the same purpose English does. Parens are necessary in a pro
Sounds good. I'll start on my 39th :-{ RFC right now... ;-)
-Nate
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note
> > about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it sep
At 02:20 PM 9/27/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> > Really, I don't see why we can't
> > just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
>
>Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
>pragmas are compiled.
'no ta
At 10:26 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > The concept of C as opposed to C is sometimes difficult for
> > people to understand.
>
>"People" in this context being the people who are reading perl6-language and
>purporting
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:35:39PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, because it
> has no precedence rules. (Well, hardly any). It has (almost)
> no other syntax. This is the situation we would like to avoid
> in perl. By letting every operator have w
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
Right. Parens, and other devices for "readability", are there
for the user to use, if she chooses. Perl is not about forcing
a certain style.
--
John Porter
Aus des Weltalls ferne funken Radiosterne.
Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> what's going on.
Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, bec
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
Yep. If you don't stop, pretty soon you have sh. :-P
> l((apply &foo (mapcar &bar (@wibble
pragma time:
use literal qw( apply mapcar http://www.perl.org/ );
use LWP::Simple;
getpri
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:45:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> But on a tangential note: has anyone proposed letting
> functions, perhaps by prototype, allow the autoquoting
> of arguments?
I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
use fewer sewers;
would be fine, and I'd lik
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note
> about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it separately?
Adding headers() to the core language (or a similar pragma that is
automagically invo
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
>
> We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
> C for when we want to be grammatically
> correct. Or am I just being silly now?
Or have perl enforce the correct grammar.
% perl -
Philip Newton wrote:
>
> > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
> > instead that does such auto-formatting?
>
> In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and
> if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys and in
>
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
> Really, I don't see why we can't
> just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
Z.
> So getpwnam/uid should probably return gecos, not gcos.
Yep. Already fixed in the next version.
Damian
Damian Conway wrote:
>
>> On the matter of gcos or gecos, and passwd or pw_passwd, and all
>> that noise, please consult the User::pwent manpage.
>> There's no reason for all those noisy bits.
>
> Since the standard function provides those noisy bits, this proposal
> names them.
Not
> On the matter of gcos or gecos, and passwd or pw_passwd, and all
> that noise, please consult the User::pwent manpage.
> There's no reason for all those noisy bits.
Since the standard function provides those noisy bits, this proposal
names them.
> In fact, there had jolly well
> Rename the C operator
> A list of other proposed replacement names includes (but is not
> limited to, since I certainly have forgotten some):
> C
Unfortunately, I wish this RFC would have taken a stand on at least a
first choice. :-( I always thought that "now" was by far the most
descriptive
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
> > need to ruin the cuteness.
>
> "use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
C
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> What I wanted to indicate is that the input and output handling of the
> debugger, currently line input and line output, should not be turned
> into a sophisticated user interface with command line recall/editing
> and fancy output paging (e.g. two in
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 07:36:42AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> Tainting should be able to be turned off, as Tom recommends,
> but only if the user turns on the "absolutely, positively,
> do NOT turn on taint mode" switch.
I can see it now -- C. Really, I don't see why we can't
just have a
Adam Turoff wrote:
>
> > PRL> -r freadable()
> > PRL> -w fwriteable()
> > PRL> -x fexecable()
> > PRL> -o fowned()
> >
> > PRL> -R Freadable()
> > PRL> -W Fwriteable()
> > PRL> -X Fexecable()
> > PRL> -O Fowned()
> >
> > this looks decent to
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 10:30:36AM -0500, David Grove wrote:
> Although I have no interest in saying anything supportive of this idea, I think
> it would be dreadfully funny if Python suddenly lost its primary point of
> advocacy against the Perl language just because we allowed (not required)
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
> need to ruin the cuteness.
"use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you f
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
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 wonder why no language has tried this before.
It's a question of what the language allows vs. what
David Grove wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:17 AM, Tom Christiansen 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 Lar
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> You suggested:
>
> file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
>
> That's really insane. The goal was to produce code that's legible.
I'd always use -w and would never use anything else. I was just
brainstorming.
And I personally don't understand your sugge
Goodness, no, don't call it "PRAYER". The blessing
is one of corporate approval, not ecclesiastical deprecationem.
Please don't piss people off.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you
Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
need to ruin the cuteness.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribut
The -wd syntax (writeable directory) is nicer than file($file, "wd").
But anyway, there's hardly anything wrong with -w && -d. Don't
understand
the complaint.
One thing I would really like to see is better security support. Look
at the Camel-III's security chapter, File::Temp, and the is_safe
s
One doesn't remove useful and intuitive syntax
just because Mr Bill never put it into MS-BASIC!
I merely passingly suggested that there be a
use English style alias for these. They are, however,
wholly natural to millions of people, and should not
be harrassed. (NB: 10 million Linux weenies al
>You suggested:
> file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
Not that I'm advocating it but you do something like:
test($file, WRITEABLE);
test($file, WRITEABLE & READABLE);
...
where constants are defined for various "attributes" to be tested for...
Currently 23, or 3 bytes... (not that
On the matter of unpack(C4) and the gethost returns,
I certainly agree that all pack/unpack ickiness should
be hidden away. It's nutty that gethostbyaddr takes
a binary address, yet just try to get that with getnetwhatever.
See the Net::hostent manpage, where I confess that you
still need to do t
> grep -l Class::Struct */*.pm
Class/Struct.pm
File/stat.pm
Net/hostent.pm
Net/netent.pm
Net/protoent.pm
Net/servent.pm
Time/gmtime.pm
Time/localtime.pm
Time/tm.pm
User/grent.pm
User/pwent.pm
Please check those out for precedent and practice.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This
On the matter of gcos or gecos, and passwd or pw_passwd, and all
that noise, please consult the User::pwent manpage. There's
no reason for all those noisy bits. In fact, there had jolly
well better be a VERY good reason not to follow my Class::Struct'd
modules' name choices, since they were cho
You suggested:
file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
That's really insane. The goal was to produce code that's legible.
That is hardly better. It's much worse than is_writable or writable
or whatnot. Just use -w if that's what you want.
--tom
Visit our website at http://www.ub
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 22:51]:
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote:
> > Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
> > instead that does such auto-formatting?
> In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered,
> and
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote:
> Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
> instead that does such auto-formatting?
In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and
if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, not to mention the fact that many modules, notably CGI.pm,
> > are arranged to allow to use unquoted strings of the form -name:
> >
> > print textfield( -name => 'description' );
>
> Well, this one's not an iss
[Quoting Dave Storrs, on September 26 2000, 11:47, in "Re: RFC 292 (v1) Ext"]
> I'm confused...are you suggesting that the debugger should no
> longer be integrated into perl?
Absolutely not!
What I wanted to indicate is that the input and output handling of the
debugger, currently line in
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
Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
The most important optimization a programmer can make is to optimize
for understanding.
--
Piers
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> The concept of C as opposed to C is sometimes difficult for
> people to understand.
"People" in this context being the people who are reading perl6-language and
purporting to be able to know what Perl 6 needs. People who ought
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
> parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
> anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
> what's going on.
I'd go further
./sun4-solaris/POSIX.pm:sub isatty {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scope {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_state {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_miniwhile { # check for one-line loop
(`foo() while $y--')
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scalar {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_su
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.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the i
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 19:54]:
> 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 wonder why no language has tried this before.
I realise you're
Robert Mathews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Cozens wrote:
> > (defun Schwartzian (func list)
> > (mapcar
> >(lambda (x) (car x))
> >(sort
> > (mapcar
> > (lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
> > list
> > )
> > (lambda (x y) (< (cdr x) (cdr y)))
> > )
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
Each parenthesis is one "token". The more tokens y
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
> Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so fewer "cluttering"
> > parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
>
> By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
> indentation to define block structur
* Perl6 RFC Librarian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 18:36]: []
[...]
> When this pragma is loaded, it should replace the print coderef with a
> function that will print out all headers in the @HEADERS queue, print
> out the desired output, and restore the print coderef.
It should also ens
> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be
AT> exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm
AT> on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable()
AT> looks better. It is tom's
I do not see how the cited RFCs manage to cover the fact
that while () doesn't do a localization, but that for()
does, and that this confuses people.
--tom, incognito
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the ind
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:48:33AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PRL> -r freadable()
> PRL> -w fwriteable()
> PRL> -x fexecable()
> PRL> -o fowned()
>
> PRL> -R Freadable()
> PRL> -W Fwrite
> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
PRL> -r freadable()
PRL> -w fwriteable()
PRL> -x fexecable()
PRL> -o fowned()
PRL> -R Freadable()
PRL> -W Fwriteable()
PRL> -X Fexecable()
PRL> -O Fowned()
PRL> -e fexis
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:50:28AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>
> >Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
> >export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
>
> Can you say "method"?
Doesn't wo
81 matches
Mail list logo
