--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| SUMMARY
| By default, regexes shouldn't untaint. Also, provide a
| toolkit for Safer Untainting.
| ...
| Ergo, I propose that regexes only untaint stuff in parens
| if you specifically tell them to do so. A capital-T
| switch would work nicely
__CODE__
#!/usr/bi
--- David Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/6/02 11:43 PM, "Damian Conway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> >> / $2:=(.*?), \h* $1:=(.*) /
> >>
> >> Does this imply that $1, $2, etc are now read-write outside of regexen?
> >
> > No.
>
> Maybe this is a RTFM question, but does
> The binary image should represent the interpreters
> internal state and the compiled bytecode, as straight
> as possible.
Internal state is a problem.
> example:
>
> if (my $binary = hibernate) {
> print "Feelin sleepy... Good Night.";
> save_to_disk($binary, "~/myscript.pl.sleeps");
>
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> > Damian said:
> > > 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
> >
> > To me, "otherwise" is a synonym for "else", and that makes it too
> > confusingly similar. I foresee forever explaining to people the differen
> > I still don't like the idea of Cs on loops. I already do an
> > instant double take with C of "Where's the if?" (with visions of
> > old Wendy's commercials dancing in my head).
>
> Me too. That's why the looping "else" should be spelled "otherwise"
> IMHO.
If a loop produced a boolean val
> > I'm I beating this point to death, or do I have to write
> > the RPC:
> >
> > "Keep the {} and [] notation for hashes and arrays"
> >
> > or
> >
> > "Save our array!"
>
> Let's boil this RFC down to one short phrase:
>
> If {} goes away in Perl6, then everything you've heard
> about Perl6
> >> but wait, there's more... what does:
> >>
> >> @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
> >>
> >> give?
> >
> >Who cares? So long as the intermediate results in
> >@multi_dim.[$a].[$b].[$c] respond to [].
>
> Hrm. Will they need to? That could arguably pass a three
> element key ($a,$b,$c) to @multi_dim w
> > but wait, there's more... what does:
> >
> > @multi_dim[$a][$b][$c]
> >
> > give?
>
> It's representation hiding. I can change my layout from hashes to arrays
> without the clients of my code having to know. :)
>
> Seriously, the above argument might actually hold some merit when changing
>
> I know this is going pretty far back in the design process, but I was
> wondering why we're using curlies for hash subscripts, now that the %
> sticks around when you key it. Then curlies could only two
> things : Anonymous hash making and closure making. Maybe it's just too
> much culture s
> >> : Piers Cawley writes:
> >> : ...
> >> : The trouble is, unless Perl6 is going to be guaranteed to do
> >> : optimization of tail calls, this is going to lead to horribly slow
> >> : code. So, do I bite the bullet and recast some of the functions in an
> >> : iterative vein, or do I trust t
> : Piers Cawley writes:
> :
> : So, here I am working on a Scheme interpreter in Perl 6, and I'm
> : trying to write it in a (for want of a better description)
> : 'Scheme-like' fashion with lots of recursion.
> :
> : The trouble is, unless Perl6 is going to be guaranteed to do
> : optimization
> On 1/27/02 9:57 AM, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > I can't help thinking that requiring quotes will
> > make it all nice and consistent, and completely
> > zap all these edge cases.
>
> Well, it'll sure make the subset of Perl programmers
> who have always quoted hash subscripts anyway (like
> me - us
Hi,
This is already handled in Perl 5 - which I guess will have
an influence on Perl 6. I doubt Larry is going to force
everyone to quote the hash subscripts (are you Larry? :)
Let a newish (6 < now < 12 months) non professional
(unemployed student ;) Perl programmer, like myself, look
at how h
[Note: I've resent this - since apparently it never made it
to the list. Can someone please complain offlist if they
did get the previous one?]
>
> >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
> all the list
> >manipulation ope
>
> >Damian Conway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> >
> >You *could* instead consider reversing the arguments to
> all the list
> >manipulation operators:
> >
> > @result = map @data { mapping() }
> > @result = grep @data { selector() };
> > @result = sort @data { comparison() };
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
