Author: autrijus
Date: Sat Apr 29 23:39:39 2006
New Revision: 9029
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
Log:
* S06: aufrank++ pointed out the quicksort example was still
using the (?$foo) form in Sigs instead of ($foo?).
Modified: doc/trunk/design/syn/S06.pod
=
Good (and floating) point.
Boom boom! ;-)
How about this:
$antler.bar;
$xyzzy.:bar;
$blah. .bar;
$foo. .bar;
That is, introduce only the non-space-filled .: variant, and retain the
space-filled long dot.
But do we really need *three* distinct forms of method call, in addition to
the (eas
Audrey Tang wrote:
>Damian Conway wrote:
>
>
>>Juerd wrote:
>>
>>
and propose ".:" as a solution
>>>$xyzzy.:foo();
>>>$fooz. :foo();
>>>$foo. :foo();
>>>
>>>
>>This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>>
>> foo. :bar()
>>
>>and:
Damian Conway wrote:
> Juerd wrote:
>>> and propose ".:" as a solution
>
>> $xyzzy.:foo();
>> $fooz. :foo();
>> $foo. :foo();
>
> This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>
>foo. :bar()
>
> and:
>
>foo :bar()
>
> depend on a visual difference of
On Saturday 29 April 2006 18:29, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> If dots looked like this:
>
>
>
> then they would be invisible.
Use a laptop with a speck of dust in the wrong place in slightly wrong
lighting and the wrong four pixels might as well be invisible.
Precious few of @Larry deserve the nicknam
Damian Conway wrote:
Juerd wrote:
> Audrey cleverly suggested that changing the second character would also
> work, and that has many more glyphs available. So she came up with
>
>> and propose ".:" as a solution
> $xyzzy.:foo();
> $fooz. :foo();
> $foo. :foo();
This would make the
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 19:03:28 -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Two invisible things look completely different to you?
If dots looked like this:
then they would be invisible.
--
Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://nothingmuch.woobling.org 0xEBD27418
pgplPt8CiApME.pgp
Description: PGP si
On Saturday 29 April 2006 16:58, Yuval Kogman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:49:45 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> > This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
> >
> >foo. :bar()
> >
> > and:
> >
> >foo :bar()
> >
> > depend on a visual difference of about four
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 18:12:34 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> > I get a message like this for every message that I send to this list.
> > Trying to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not result in response or change.
> >
> > Any ideas?
>
> For
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 10:49:45 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> This would make the enormous semantic difference between:
>
>foo. :bar()
>
> and:
>
>foo :bar()
>
> depend on a visual difference of about four pixels. :-(
You're not counting the space around the dot, which counts
Juerd wrote:
Audrey cleverly suggested that changing the second character would also
work, and that has many more glyphs available. So she came up with
and propose ".:" as a solution
$xyzzy.:foo();
$fooz. :foo();
$foo. :foo();
This would make the enormous semantic difference
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:59:37PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
> I get a message like this for every message that I send to this list.
> Trying to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not result in response or change.
>
> Any ideas?
Forward that message (with full headers) to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who will then app
I get a message like this for every message that I send to this list.
Trying to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not result in response or change.
Any ideas?
- Forwarded message from sbc sbc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: sbc sbc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 08:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Author: autrijus
Date: Sat Apr 29 08:27:29 2006
New Revision: 9004
Modified:
doc/trunk/design/syn/S02.pod
Log:
* S02: Change the section headings "Atoms" and "Molecules" to the more
descriptive "Lexical Conventions" and "Whitespace and Comments".
Reported by: Wassercrats
Modified: doc/tru
> 16:50 < audreyt> Juerd: write to p6l and explain the ".." conflict,
The current long dot consists of a dot, then whitespace, and then
another dot. The whitespace is mandatory, which makes the construct at
least three characters long. Tripling the length of an operator, just to
make it alignable,
> "james" == james <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
james> I think they are different things. An "environment variable" is
james> something in %*ENV. An "environmental variable" is a variable which
james> was declared with env $foo, and which can be seen by callers.
If they both have "env"-ish
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 07:50:02AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Please, let us agree to use the traditional name of "environment variables" in
> the docs, and not re-introduce its bastardized cousin, which hurts my ears.
> Thanks.
I think they are different things. An "environment variable"
Please, let us agree to use the traditional name of "environment variables" in
the docs, and not re-introduce its bastardized cousin, which hurts my ears.
Thanks.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security
In Perl5, the meaning of the undef value is overloaded. It can mean
either the value an uninitialized variable or it may indeed mean a
genuine undefined value. Perl5 is biased toward the first meaning: in
string context, the value behaves as an empty string; In integer
and float context, it respe
19 matches
Mail list logo
