On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 01:26:09AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:13:23PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> This one not only modifies its arguments (or $_ when called without),
> it also has the right prototype and works on lists:
>
> sub chop (@) {
> my
> J. David Blackstone wrote:
>> That's one nice thing about Perl; you can foreach over
>> an array of all sorts of different things. In fact, being able to
>> just have an array of all sorts of different things is something Perl
>> still has over Java, C, and the like.
>
> It's not that big a dea
J. David Blackstone wrote:
>
> > And in related news, it's a total pain that one can't iterate over the
> > contents of an array without knowing intimate details about its
> > contents: you have to know whether it's byte[], or int[], or Object[].
>
> That's one nice thing about Perl; you can for
I like the final point:
> Stay tuned, I'm sure I'll have found something new to hate by tomorrow.
>
> (Well, that's how this document originally ended. But it's not true,
> because I'm back to hacking in C, since it's the still only way to
> ship portable programs.)
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:13:23PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 03:42:43PM -0700, root wrote:
> > I read RFC195 suggesting to drop 'chop' and go with 'chomp'.
> > What does 'chop' have anything to do with 'chomp'?
>
> chop() and chomp() are very often confused due to
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Larry mumbled something like "implements" and "interface". So to say
> > >
> > > package Net::FTP::Foo implements Net::FTP;
> > >
> > > But I don't think, anybody wrote an RFC about the plan.
> >
> > I did. Or something like it. And I've
>o The architecture-interrogation primitives are inadequate; there is no
> robust way to ask ``am I running on Windows'' or ``am I running on
> Unix.''
>
> **We have $^O, but it requires parsing every time**
And $^O =~ /win/i broke recently when Apple introduced Darwin.
(R
Tony Bowden pointed out a JWZ rant simply entitled 'java sucks'. He
makes a number of specific, solid technical points about Java which I
think have relevance to Perl.
http://www.jwz.org/doc/java.html
What follows are some of the more interesting excerpts. **These are
my comments***
Here's th
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 03:42:43PM -0700, root wrote:
> I read RFC195 suggesting to drop 'chop' and go with 'chomp'.
> What does 'chop' have anything to do with 'chomp'?
chop() and chomp() are very often confused due to their similar names,
similar functionality and the fact that chop() did chomp
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 11:49:08AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> I did. Or something like it. And I've got a couple of modules on CPAN
> (that I really must document better) that kind of work already:
>
> package ShoppingBasket;
>
> use ex::interface qw/add_entry total_price delete_en
> > Larry mumbled something like "implements" and "interface". So to say
> >
> > package Net::FTP::Foo implements Net::FTP;
> >
> > But I don't think, anybody wrote an RFC about the plan.
>
> I did. Or something like it. And I've got a couple of modules on CPAN
> (that I really must documen
Hi,
I read RFC195 suggesting to drop 'chop' and go with 'chomp'.
What does 'chop' have anything to do with 'chomp'?
I'm totally oppose to that. Consider:
my $s;
map { /\S/ && $s .= "$_ " } split(/\s+/,@_);
chop($s);
return $s;
Thanks,
Marc K.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) writes:
> > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:37:23 -0500, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > from what I remember we discussed
> > an idea to allow people and organizations to produce their own list of
> > approved modules.
>
> This is already p
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:37:23 -0500, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> from what I remember we discussed
> an idea to allow people and organizations to produce their own list of
> approved modules.
This is already possible with the CPAN::Site module.
> For example, if Oracl
14 matches
Mail list logo
