RE: Uses for array notation (was Re: RFC 104 (v1) Backtracking)

-Original Message- From: Jeremy Howard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] Programmers shouldn't have to know how a computer implements things behind the scenes--which is really what requiring explicit looping forces. Great point, this should be in the RFC. -Corwin

RE: ... as a term

-Original Message- From: Ed Mills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Excellent idea- anything to get to production faster! > >But don't {} or {1} sort of do the same thing? I think the point here is readability, not unique functionality. There more then one way to do it :) -Corwin

RE: Unify the Exception and Error Message RFCs?

This seems like a good idea, to me. -Corwin From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >IMHO trading six RFCs for two will greatly improve the chance of passing.

RE: RFC 78 (v1) Improved Module Versioning And Searching

-Original Message- From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > For the record, I prefer hashes for that sort of thing too. But > perl has traditionally done ordered list returns, and I followed in > that vein. Perhaps Damian's want() (RFC 21) can be used to allow allow either ret

RE: RFC 58 (v1) C changes.

The Perl 6 Librarian writes >=head1 DESCRIPTION > >This RFC contains two proposed changes. First, as it is common to want to >removed newlines upon reading a file, > > while (chomp()) { >. . . > } > >should become the equivalent of > > while () { >chomp; >. . . > } > >where th

RE: RFC 58 (v1) C changes.

From: Ted Ashton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> I don't particularly mind the last two - in fact they add some benefits >> (like not modifying the original), which are nice to have. However, that >> first one, frankly, drives me nuts. > >Please reread the proposal. chomp() called in void context

Scope of Language group

I'm just clarifying beacause it came up in language-flow. Language issues are issues which affect the verbs (print, die, etc) and nouns (%SIG, $/) globaly available in Perl. Language Flow issuses would then be issues which affect flow control? Does this sound right? Corwin Brust Software E

RE: Things to remove

From: Simply Hao [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> might want to consider removing chomp() and possibly chop(). > >They're faster than regexes, right? Dunno about faster but so sweet. I like while (<>) { print chomp } better then while (<>{ s/$/$//; p

RE: Error handling

From: Peter Bevan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Error handling should be supported by it's own keyword i.e.: > >trap { > #CODE >} >release (error) { > # ERROR >} I think this is touched on by RFC# 3 wherein I ask for user definable error messages. With those one could presumably set an erro

RE: RFC 59 (v1) Proposal to utilize C<*> as the prefix t

From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote: >>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote: >>Check the docs again. [snip] >> Four special subroutines act as package constructors and >> destructors. These are the `BEGIN', `CHECK', `IN

RE: RFC: lexical variables made default

--snip-- From: Tom Christiansen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Perl's similarity to English is one of the things that makes it Fun. >OTOH, being fun (which I admit it is) is one of the reasons many >people don't want to think Perl is a serious language. So what? --sinp

RE: multiline comments

I thought that that was just the plan. Form sub lists to collect ideas that needed hashing, if that hashing got involved make sub-lists to reach consensus on those. You have a nice thread handeling mail client, don-ch tom? -Corwin -Original Message- From: Tom Christiansen [mailto:[EMA

Multi-line comment sub list?

As in - maybe it's time for... -Corwin Corwin Brust Software Engineer Alliance Data Systems formerly Harmonic Systems, Inc. 701 Fourth Ave South, Suite-1600 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Office (612) 672-3584 Mobil(612) 239-8073 Email[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: What is Perl?

in -Original Message- From: Alan Burlison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 4:01 PM To: Brust, Corwin Cc: Tony Payne; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: What is Perl? "Brust, Corwin" wrote: > A good language can help produce good programers, thoug

RE: Removing/fixing $[line noise here] variables

ure there's a B way to implement this. I hope, however, that I have shown such a thing can be done. =head1 REFERENCES =cut -Original Message- From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:48 PM To: Brust, Corwin; 'Steve Simmons'; Perl6 Lang

RE: Removing/fixing $[line noise here] variables

ay, August 01, 2000 3:48 PM To: Brust, Corwin; 'Steve Simmons'; Perl6 Language Changes Subject: RE: Removing/fixing $[line noise here] variables Put together an RFC for it. (Soon!) This is a language topic, but it will impact internals a touch, and I'd like to get as many of the &

RE: Removing/fixing $[line noise here] variables

Could this then also give the programer control over the content of error/warning messages produced by Perl at runtime? Am I way off track here? -Corwin -Original Message- From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:37 PM To: Perl6 Language Changes S

RE: perl 6 requirements

But is this useful? sub baz { return ( 'one','two' ) } my ($foo, $bar) = &baz; # $foo == 'one', $bar == 'two' -Corwin -Original Message- From: Chaim Frenkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:10 PM To: Piers Cawley Cc: Ted Ashton; Tom Christiansen; Simon Cozens

RE: What is Perl?

A good language can help produce good programers, though. Perhaps Tom's team can be required to 'use OurStrictness' which sets up stuff like exporting use of strict and taint -Corwin -Original Message- From: Alan Burlison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 1:20 PM

RE: Summary...tell me where I'm worng...

-Original Message- From: Dominic Dunlop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] previously difficult or impossible (or merely verbose). But it's also more or less poorly documented, more or less poorly understood, more or less well-used, and more or less poorly tested. (Indeed, some of it's sti

RE: draft RFC: loop control and do

=head1 DESCRIPTION The C<{}> in C and C do not define blocks. This is a problem because C is the only way to get a bottom-testing "loop". This is not a real loop because the statement modifier version of C modifies the C statement, not the non-block of code in the C<{}>. Thus C, C, and C do