The Perl 6 Summary for the week ending 20030202
Welcome to the second Perl 6 summary of the Copious Free Time era and
already I've broken the 'mailed out by Monday evening' promise. There
were reasons however, mostly to do with going down to London to do the
paperwork for my redunda
Sounds like a job for a bot!
(couldn't resist)
-- Gregor
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
02/04/2003 11:38 AM
Please respond to duff
To: Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc: "Miko O'Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> >>And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
> >>gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
> >>presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
> You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the
> "finalized" RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to
> include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of
> what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs w
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
re-open the RFC process?
RFC's are proposals before the comments.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
> You suggest doing it in HTML. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it in
> POD, the standard documentation language for Perl?
For now, since it's a web site, let's stick to HTML. If somebody just way
prefers POD, contact me off list and we'll figure out the
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an i
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an idea,
writes a summary as
Aaron Sherman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 14:54, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
>> Can someone give me a realish world example of when you would want an
>> array that can store both undefined values and default values and those
>> values are different?
>
> my @send_partner_em
Rick Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd also like to point out that ruby has defaults for hashes but
> assigning nil (the equivalent of undef) does not set the default; delete
> does.
Yeah, but Hashes aren't Arrays. And vice versa.
--
Piers
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Murat_=DCnalan?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:21:11 +0100
>
> > to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., "most
> > people felt this way", "some people felt differently", etc.
>
> One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestio
> to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., "most
> people felt this way", "some people felt differently", etc.
One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be
Discussion: "Foo feature"
"Want it":Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D
"Reject it:
What about:
($var &&= 'succeeded') ||= 'failed';
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> Argh. Please disregard that last message as the ramblings of a
> pre-caffeinated mind.
>
> /s
>
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Sean O'Rourke wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> > > $var ??
13 matches
Mail list logo
