Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

yaphet jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed > >>Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and > >>are deeply eng

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

>Feeding the troll: careful with the troll talk: remember, your god's favorite book is the "lord of the rings"...chock full of trolls...and hobbits, too! >> => example 2: ruby >> => now more popular than python in its native japan > >Python isn't native to Japan. obviously, nitwit...ruby is th

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:53:51PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > So since when did perl6-language become perl-advocacy? Rephrased: Could > people please take the advocacy traffic elsewhere where it isn't noise? > Thanks. Methinks trolls can't read. -- $jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ #

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

So since when did perl6-language become perl-advocacy? Rephrased: Could people please take the advocacy traffic elsewhere where it isn't noise? Thanks. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

Feeding the troll: > => example 2: ruby > => now more popular than python in its native japan Python isn't native to Japan. -- MISTAKES: It Could Be That The Purpose Of Your Life Is Only To Serve As A Warning To Others http://www.desp

Re: End-of-scope actions: Toward a hybrid approach.

John Porter wrote: > > So in RFC 119, we have in-scope catch statements, dangling except > > clauses, and dangling always clauses. > > I'll go on the record as saying that I am totally opposed to > dangling "clauses" of any kind. Now that's just the sort of Gibralter-like position that begs to b

Re: End-of-scope actions: Toward a hybrid approach.

Glenn Linderman wrote: > you'll note that RFC 119 does, in fact, place catch statements inside > the scope of the block to which they apply, Yup! I wish I could take credit for this, historically, but an examination of the archives shows that Glenn holds priority. > So in RFC 119, we have in-

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

anonymous troll wrote: > John Porter wrote: > > Unfortunately, to the two optimizations are mostly disjoint. > > this is completely false when applied to real programming languages. Oh? > => example 1: php > . less cryptic (but more verbose) more verbose == not optimized for the exper

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

>Johan Vromans wrote: >> >> If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes >> it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should >> be seriously considered. > >Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist] >which is optimized (or at least m

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

anonymous troll wrote: > > yet another _example_ of perl's "expert vs. newbie" snobbery. It's simply a design decision. And there's plenty of reason for thinking it's the better way to decide. "Make something idiot-proof..." But s/idiot/newbie/. > the "perl mindset": it's what's now driving

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

Johan Vromans wrote: > > If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes > it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should > be seriously considered. Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist] which is optimized (or at least meant to b

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

>On Sat, Feb 17 2001 09:04:54 -0800, Simon Cozens wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:02:08AM -0800, yaphet jones wrote: >> the tchrist (christiansen) said it best, when he described perl5: >>...an "expert-friendly" language... > >And he was right. Perl is *not* deliberately dumbed down, because

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN

Oops. Forgot a few points. I said that you should give me the courtesy of responding to all of my points, and > I think we're rapidly approaching "agree to disagree" territory here. No we are not. If you come up with some good counter arguments, maybe. I am the first person to admit when someo

Re: End-of-scope actions: do/eval duality.

Thanks, Bart. So Tony, it looks like RFC 88, because of its tight coupling of exception and failure handling, needs to address the issue of "do FILE" that Bart mentions can set $@. This is an issue that results solely from the coupling of exception and failure handling, not from the syntax and s

Re: End-of-scope actions: Toward a hybrid approach.

Tony Olekshy wrote: > Glenn Linderman wrote: > > > > Tony Olekshy wrote: > > > > > By rule 2 above, it would seem that if $p->foo raises an Error:IO > > exception, that the except block hasn't yet been seen, and > > therefore the block should propagate unwinding. > > Ah, yup. ++$bugs{$self} OK

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:02:08AM -0800, yaphet jones wrote: > the tchrist (christiansen) said it best, when he described perl5: > >>>...an "expert-friendly" language... And he was right. Perl is *not* deliberately dumbed down, because, unlike other languages, we do *not* assume our users are du

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope

>Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed >>Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and >>are deeply engrained in the Perl mindset should not be tampered >>with just be

Re: The binding of "my" (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed > Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and > are deeply engrained in the Perl mindset should not be tampered > with just because some recent convert finds them un-Algol-like