> 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 t
>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
> Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
>> I'd rather not revisit this, or any other, RFC until Larry's had a
>> chance to *really* comment and put forward his suggestions.
>
> I think pitching renames for "local" is at least as worthwhile as
> pitching code names. How about "Hold?" It isn't listed in Bla
I'd be all for the XML documentation idea, either as a replacement
for or as a substitute for POD. However, I'd like to note that if you
want XML documentation in your Perl code, POD really makes it easy:
=for XML (or DocBook, or whatever)
Simply require yourself to use only POD sections lik
On Wed., Aug 16, 2000, Nate Wiger wrote:
> is good. Right now, people are hopping in 500 emails behind, replying to
> something in the middle of the stream, and only later reading the
> "please move this to -errors" post.
Actually, I'm 1283 emails behind, to be exact.
And that's just countin
Larry Wall wrote:
> The main downside of accessors is that you can't (currently) say
>
> local $obj->attribute = 2;
Is anyone thinking of this? This comes at a good time when I've
been looking for just such an idea to shore up one of my proposals on
perl6-language-strict.
J. David
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Less line noise - let's get rid of @%
I understand that with the pervasiveness of object-orientation we
are now more than ever seeing objects that behave like arrays and
hashes and that it seems strange to see these listlike or hashlike
objects represented as scalars. Howev
>> Is Perl currently using different epochs on different platforms? If so, I
>
> Yes. MacOS and VMS. (Though VMS' localtime() uses the UNIX definition,
> just to be portable.) MacOS' epoch zero is 1900 (or was it 1901?),
> VMS' epoch zero is 17-NOV-1858 00:00:00.00, for some astronomical
> rea
> On 14 Aug 2000, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
>> Day resolution is insufficient for most purposes in all the Perl scripts
>> I've worked on. I practically never need sub-second precision; I almost
>> always need precision better than one day.
>>
>
> MJD allows fractional days (otherwise it would of co
Volume on perl6-language is so high, I didn't notice the thread on
RFC 64 until today. That's really the kind of discussion I'm looking
for over (t)here, so I hereby declare RFC 64 as open game for more
focused discussion on perl6-language-strict and request people discuss
it over here in the
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Now what good meanings could we attribute to $myself and $I
> ?
Right. Remember, if it looks like Perl (and with the addition of
$ME, it will), then it probably is Perl. :)
J. David
Andy Wardley wrote:
> What about '$me'? It ties in nicely with 'my' (although perhaps for the
> wrong reasons), it's half as much typing as 'self' or 'this' and we get
> to annoy both sets of religious zealots at once. :-)=
Yes! I love it!
Since no one else has taken this up, I'll start an initial draft.
=head1 TITLE
Rename the C operator
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: J. David Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 4 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: not yet assigned
=head1 ABST
Before jumping in on this, keep in mind that Larry Wall has already
stated his intent to just plain _eliminate_ many of these special
variables. Most of them suffer from the "action-at-a-distance"
problem, meaning you change something somewhere and unexpected changes
occur elsewhere.
For exa
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> I'll say up front that I have no good idea as to how to implement this,
> hence the lack of RFC, but I think it's worth getting the ball rolling to
> see if there's enough collective intelligence and inclination to make
> something happen.
>
> OO inheritance is well define
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> > =head1 TITLE
> >
> > Keep default Perl free of constraints such as warnings and strict.
>
> I second this. If the current definition of "lexical" remains unchanged
> (which I strongly suspect it will),
Lexical scope has a standard non-Perl definition. It means you c
Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> > I have retained the title of "Lexical variables made default,"
> >because I still feel that that is the primary purpose of this change,
> >meaning that in future Perl documentation (books, manpages, classes (I
> >hope)) new Perl users will first be presented with va
As the initial proponent of the opposing RFC, I feel I should make a
response. Let the will of the Perl6 community and Larry Wall prevail.
I'm sure we'll all be mostly happy, no matter where that takes us.
Daniel Chetlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perl5 is usable with no hassle as a quick-a
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> > I have retained the title of "Lexical variables made default,"
> > because I still feel that that is the primary purpose of this change
>
> First off, I think this is a great idea in principle. However, I don't
> think it goes nearly far enough in the implementation.
John Tobey wrote:
>
> "J. David Blackstone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I now believe that what we
> > really want is what so many have suggested, i.e., making strict 'vars'
> > the default (in essence, a
7;s a good reason (or at least, an
insurmountable problem I don't see), and the prospect of Perl6 makes
everything better, now, anyway.
J. David Blackstone
I think some people would probably want
those on by default, but I consider each piece of strictness to be a
separate issue. I can also keep up with only so many discussions and
RFCs at once. :)
=head1 TITLE
Lexical variables made default
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: J. David Blackstone <[EMAIL
The following RFC reflects an assumption I've been making about
where Perl6 will go. Feel free to shoot it down, if I'm the only who
feels this way. :)
=head1 TITLE
Lexical variables made default
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: J. David Blackstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dat
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> > C is, at times, less than logical. Witness the localtime fun: some of it's
> > zero-based, some of it's one-based, and some of it's -1900-based. All from the
> > same function. The localtime concept is needed, the localtime brain damage is
> > really not.
>
> I agree co
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Languages like C and
> >Pascal even go so far as to make I/O an "option" that you have to
> >#include (or whatever, depending on the language; Pascal makes you
> >specify it explicitly in some way I don't quite remember), and they
> >seem to do fine.
>
> For some pretty pat
that none of these groups are made to feel less
at home.
J. David Blackstone
o be fixed by the internals
people, right? :)
Just random thoughts and suggestions.
J. David Blackstone
he interface.
This is exactly the way I would like things to work, but others may
not feel the same.
J. David Blackstone
28 matches
Mail list logo
