On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:06:36AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:55:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > Why would you care about introducing a new lexical scope? You would
> > care about that if you used a variable you declared in the commented
> > code in the code b
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You don't actually need a macro in that case:
> >
> >if 0 { q<
> >...
> >> }
>
> Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
> code-commenting constru
It occurred to me that other day that in our "in house" C code we
somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
code that you wrap it in a CPP if statement. The logic being that
if you haven't deleted t
> to me static IS a behavior. its value is static from call to call.
> >> other overloaded meanings of static from c/c++ are baggage we can drop.
I can see the potental for alot of ambiguaty between the meaning of 'is Static' and
'is Constant' (unless your a c/c++ programmer so your mind is al
