On Sep 25, 2004, at 10:27 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 10:01:42PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: We've also said that MY is a pseudopackage referring to the current
: lexical scope so that you can hand off your lexical scope to someone
: else to read (but not modify, unless you are cur
On Sep 23, 2004, at 5:27 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 08:15:08AM -0700, Jeff Clites wrote:
>>>
>>> just like the transformation of a string into a number, and from a
>>> number to a string. Two algorithmically different thin
On Sep 22, 2004, at 5:06 PM, Edward Peschko wrote:
How do you do that? Generation and matching are two different things
algorithmically.
yes, but they are intimately linked. just like the transformation of a
string
into a number, and from a number to a string. Two algorithmically
different
thing
On Apr 19, 2004, at 12:06 AM, Luke Palmer wrote:
Therefore, the first syntax can be redefined to evaluate the code block
and assign the result to $0.
Would you ever want to leave $0 unaltered? That's the only concern
which comes to mind.
My argument for using this notation stems from the fact th
Speaking to the practical side, I have written code that has to
disentangle
itself from the failure of a complex startup sequence. I'd love to be
able
to build a dynamic exit sequence. (In fact, being able to do &block
.=
{ more_stuff(); }; is way up on my list...)
I've wanted to do that sort of
