At 10:48 AM 2/22/2001 +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
>
> The basic usefulness of warnings is not in question. This is about
> the *perception* of their utility. Warnings are only useful if the
> user heeds them. The question is, will having them on by default make
> the user more or less l
At 09:36 AM 2/22/2001 +, David Grove wrote:
>This is what's scaring me about all this talk about
>exceptions... it can break this mold and make Perl into a "complainer
>language" belching up uncaught (don't care) exceptions forcing try/except
>blocks around every piece of IO or DB handling. Th
Bart Lateur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as
forgiving
> >> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal
Sam Tregar wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the program.
>
> Yup. So all (potentially) exceptions are "fatal errors"? Well, that
> definition fits "almost meaningless" pretty well, in my opinion!
Not exactly. Java defines two clases of "t
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:32:50 -0500 (EST), Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
>> as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal error in those
>> languages.
>Examples? I know you're no
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:01:39 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
>default? Or even know of one?
Actually, it's pretty common. Only, most languages are not as forgiving
as perl, and what is merely a warning in Perl, is a fatal er
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 06:05:25PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Are we still having this discussion? :-)
*sigh* yes.
> I do not think there is hard dividing line between warnings and
> errors. "Unable to establish network connection - saving file to local
> disk" means the program is still ru
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 05:32:50PM -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Examples? I know you're not talking about C or C++. I'm pretty sure
> you're not talking about Java - exception-handling renders the term "fatal
> error" almost meaningless.
Well, an unhandled exception in Java is death for the progr
Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time warnings.
A run-time error is something the language defines as being explicitly
bad or a mistake (
Are we still having this discussion? :-)
At 07:23 PM 2/21/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Its true alot languages would consider many of Perl's warnings to be
>errors, that's not really analgous to what we're talking about here.
>
>Run-time errors aren't quite in the same spirit as run-time w
Has anyone actually used a language which has run-time warnings on by
default? Or even know of one?
--
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl6 Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
> changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
> that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well,
> we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful.
Sometimes.
> > Sometimes it's not. And that's fine.
>
> No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of
> problems. If you get 1450 'use of
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> > autovivification saying:
>
> The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you
when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code
it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish
code, others might say is "horribly wrong".
--
John Porter
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >
> > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
> > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
> > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probab
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has
> gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly
> perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the
> difference.
Can you give me an example of t
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
whispered
> :
> | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
> | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
>
> I don't know that I would s
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for
4.036. I can only find man
At 05:27 PM 2/19/01 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type
> >
> > GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
> > bar => \my $bar);
>
>If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think that:
>
> > >
> > > my $a, $b, $c;
> > >
> > > should be
Johan Vromans wrote:
>
> If a Perl construct does not suffer from a slight change that makes
> it easier to accept by new programmers, I think such changes should
> be seriously considered.
Yes; but the world if full of language [sorry, couldn't resist]
which is optimized (or at least meant to b
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
> Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness and
> are deeply engrained in the Perl mindset should not be tampered
> with just because some recent convert finds them un-Algol-like
> Why with `my' I do need them? Why don't these behave the same?
Because the precedence is different.
Remember, 'my' is a lexical construct.
It does not "return" a value, and it does not
take "arguments" -- not in the runtime sense.
It applies only to literal variable symbols.
It is meaningless (
Simon Cozens wrote:
> John Porter wrote:
> > But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
>
> Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
As someone else said before me, Perl should not be changed
Just Because We Can. Aspects which have proven usefulness a
This just isn't making sense.
Currently one has to write
my( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
And you're willing to eviscerate perl to save two keystrokes;
you say you'd be happy with either
my $x, $y, $z = @_;
or
( $x, $y, $z ) = @_;
but the (consequent) fact that
$x, $y,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:45:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
> You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
See?
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from real
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> To rehash, all this discussion should involve is the possibility of
> making "my" swallow its list args:
>my $x, $y, $z; # same as my($x, $y, $z)
> That's it. No changing the way lists and , and = work in Perl.
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Branden wrote:
> a) Many of us want Perl to have globals as default, what is opposed to
> some that want `use strict' and `-w' turned on by default.
You are profoundly confused.
Globals *are* the default in current perl; and having strict 'vars'
on does not magically change that.
strict 'subs',
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> I wouldn't be so hasty to withdraw from the my binding argument. There's
> many uses of "my" that are required even with the "use scope" pragma (at
> least as I described it in RFC 64, but feel free to point it out if I
> missed an application). I think there's some good ch
>FOR
>---
> 1. It becomes more consistent with other Perl functions
my is not a function. It is a declaration. Functions take arguments
and return values. my does not. It is language construct like if.
Unless, of course, you claim that if is a function, too. That
ways lies LISP.
Branden wrote:
>
> As to the second item b), I would say I withdraw my complaints about `my' if
> my other proposal of `use scope' gets approved (since then I don't need `my'
> anymore!). I guess I would be happier with `use scope', and I also think it
> would make you happier, since it wouldn't
Well, I'll try to reach to an agreement here, since this discussion is
getting pretty much pointless.
What do we know:
a) Many of us want Perl to have globals as default, what is opposed to some
that want `use strict' and `-w' turned on by default.
b) Some of us (that would be me, I think) think
John Porter wrote:
> > Well, for me, it isn't useful, unless you can show me I'm wrong. At
least
> > give me an example that shows it's more useful this way.
>
> First, we must always remember that whatever we do, we can
> force explicit precedence through the addition of parentheses.
> The cases
At 09:56 AM 2/16/2001 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > As for the -q thing, I think it is far *less* of a burden to add "use
> > strict" and "use warnings" when you're writing a big piece of code. When
> > you're writing 5 lines, every extra character counts. When you're
> > writing 500 or 5000 lines
John Porter wrote:
> > Having `my' with the same precedence rules as `print' for example,
>
> 'my' is not 'print', it is not like 'print', is not comparable
> to 'print'. Please stop with the bogus comparisons.
>
Agree they're different (one is compile-time, other runtime, and much more
differe
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> John, settle down. None of us profess to be fantastic language designers,
> which is why we gave Larry the job. That being done, I'm not entirely sure why
> people are continuing to argue about these things. :)
You're right, of course. I should have faith that Larry
will
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:26:40AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Oh, that's a terrific improvement.
> Basically you want to change (= break) the current precedence
> of the comma operator. Thank you, Mr. Language Designer.
John, settle down. None of us profess to be fantastic language designers,
w
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:20:43PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> `my' DWIMs.
`my' will do what *you* mean at the cost of every single existing perl
programmer that currently uses it to relearn what it means. Not a
good trade off IMHO.
I'd rather `my' does what *I* mean which is what it does now.
> I
John Porter wrote:
> It turns
> out that 'my' having higher precedence than comma is signficantly
> more useful than if it had a lower precedence.
>
Well, for me, it isn't useful, unless you can show me I'm wrong. At least
give me an example that shows it's more useful this way.
> Let's all just
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:38, Branden wrote:
>
> (my($a),our($b),local($,),my($c)) = @_;
>
> What is it, anyway? A joke? (There's Perl poetry, why can't be there Perl
> jokes?) Who writes this kind of code anyway?
Okay, you caught me, it was a contrived exampled. The actual code was
On Friday 16 February 2001 11:20, Branden wrote:
> proposal. I don't think it works, because
>
> $a, $b, $c = @_;# $c gets 10 for @_=(1..10)
>
> mean a different thing that
>
> my $a, $b, $c = @_; # $c gets 3 for @_=(1..10)
It does?
>
> The last code should behave as
>
John Porter wrote:
> Come on. What's so hard about knowing
> ( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables, and
> my( $x, $y, $z )
> is a bunch of variables declared local.
> Answer: nothing.
>
If you see some code saying
my $a, $b, $c;
Would you say $b and $c are subject to a different scoping
Edward Peschko wrote:
> NOTE: to perl5 users - by default, perl is doing more up-front error checking.
> To get the old behavior, you can say 'perl -q' in front of your scripts,
Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
So chan
Branden wrote:
> Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
> strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave
> the same as those.
"In general, perl does what you want -- unless what you want is
consistency." The point is that consistency is NOT the
Edward Peschko wrote:
> well, for the small fraction of people that use it, they probably are
> experienced and know to use parens to disambiguate.
No, *everyone* knows to use parens to disambiguate.
> And anyways:
> my $a, $b, $c = @_;
> not working is 'very hard to bugtrack and totally une
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Oh, wait, commas are now implicitly parenthesized, so that
> (my $a, $b, $c) = @_;
> can be written as
> my $a, $b, $c = @_;
>
Oh! I never said commas are implicitly parenthesized! That was other
proposal. I don't think it works, because
$a, $b, $c = @_;# $
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Let alone that this:
>my $x, $y, $z;
> Doesn't DWIM, again according to what most people think.
Come on. What's so hard about knowing
( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables, and
my( $x, $y, $z )
is a bunch of variables declared local.
Answer: nothing.
On Friday 16 February 2001 09:24, Branden wrote:
> I said:
> > Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
> > strongly than , and = .
Because the implicit global scope declarator binds that tightly.
Because you lose the ability to mix scope declarators in an assigment.
I said:
> Anyway, I don't see why `local' (and `our' and `my') should bind more
> strongly than , and = . They are list operators, they should behave the
same
> as those.
>
Actually, they *look like* list operators, they should behave like those.
> - Branden
>
>
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote:
> > But it surely isn't
> > consistent with the rest of the language.
>
> It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other
> things in the language that parallel its use.
>
Well, `local' is actually
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tie (my $shoe) => $string;
>
> Not enough arguments for tie...
>
tie +(my $shoe) => $string;
This is the same as would happen to `print', for example. Or else, the
easyer
tie my($shoe) => $string;
It doesn't look like a function, so it isn't.
>
> Ah, mo
Edward Peschko wrote:
> How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by
commas
> in any context'? This is consistent
>
> $a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a, $b, $c) = ($d, $e, $f);
>
I guess this should be
$a, $b, ($c = $d), $e, $f
I think making `my' work just the same as
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @a = (1 .. 10);
> $a, $b, $c = @_;
>
> $c becomes 10. Should $c become 3 when my is placed before $a?
>
No. If my binds weaker than =, it would be
my $a, $b, $c = @_;
is the same as
my $a, $b, ($c = @_);
as the opposite of
(my $a, $b, $c) =
On Friday 16 February 2001 07:36, Branden wrote:
> But it surely isn't
> consistent with the rest of the language.
It's consistent with "our" and "local", which are really the only other
things in the language that parallel its use.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|capita.com)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I wrote elsewhere, other reasons not to change the behaviour of my:
>
> GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
> bar => \my $bar);
>
GetOptions (foo => \my($foo),
bar => \my($bar));
> tie my $shoe => $tring;
>
tie my($shoe) => $tring;
#
I guess this was what was meant by 'put your asbestos gloves on'.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:57:31PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
> forgotten
> > about it?
>
> T
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:01AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> > > Also, if I have:
> > >
> > > @a = (1 .. 10);
> > > $a, $b, $c = @_;
> >
> > How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated b
On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
forgotten
> about it?
Then it isn't, technically, a perl problem.
> How many times have I wanted to use '-w' but was not able to because
> of all the junk that comes ou
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:54:37PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Right, but what I don't understand is that its two extra characters at the end
> > of a command line... whats the big deal about typing '-q' on one line in
> > scripts? Its easy enough to advertise '-q' and
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:29:33PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:19:27PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > > But I have never f
At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think
> that:
> >
> > my $a, $b, $c;
> >
> > should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
>
>Personally
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Also, if I have:
> >
> > @a = (1 .. 10);
> > $a, $b, $c = @_;
>
> How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by commas
> in any context'? This is consistent
>
> $a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:02:10PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> If we're interested in increased CPAN quality, there's a bunch of stuff
> we can do.
See also, CPANTS (totally vaporware, but its a plan)
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00148.html
> Heck, I'd even volunteer to head up a project to do th
> It was suggested to DWIM when I use my in void context, and not when
> my isn't used in void context. With the above example, such a rule
> would mean '$bar1' is my()ed, and '$bar2' isn't. That's IMO, very hard
> to explain, very hard to bugtrack and totally unexpected. Even if not
> everyone us
[resent to perl6-language, sorry for any duplicates]
Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > I personally think that this is something Larry is going to have to
> > decide. However, I would like to note that leaving these off by default
> > lowers the transition curve to Perl 6 immensely for those people th
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:03:21PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > If I have:
> >
> > (my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar");
> >
> > then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)'
> > isn't.
> >
> > Do you really want them to behave differently?
> >
> If I have:
>
> (my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar");
>
> then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)'
> isn't.
>
> Do you really want them to behave differently?
>
> > best way to shoot down my suggestion is an example where existing behaviour
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:19:27PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > But I have never found a situation where this is so useful to justify
> > > the other problem
> >So... what was the rationale against it?
>
> Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of
> the opposing viewpoint...
hey... I'm a lazy guy.. ;-) So - I guess coming from someone who holds the
opposing viewpoint, what was it?
Ed
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> >And in any case, make '-e' have the additional connotation that implies
> >'no strict', and 'no warn'.
>
> no 'warnings'
>
> > Seems simple enough to me.
>
> Yes, that's what I thought; but this has generated more heat than light, at
> least on the times I've brought i
At 01:03 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00025.html
>
>Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, except I like '-q' better
>than '-z' for aesthetic reasons.
>
>So... what was the rationale against it?
Best read the archives... I am the wrong person
> >And in any case, make '-e' have the additional connotation that implies
> >'no strict', and 'no warn'.
>
> no 'warnings'
thanks. 'no warnings'
> > Seems simple enough to me.
> Yes, that's what I thought; but this has generated more heat than light, at
> least on the times I've brought it
At 12:43 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra
> switch that
> > > makes this possibl
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra switch that
> > makes this possible, rather than typing 'no strict; no warn;' ie:
> >
> > #!
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra switch that
> makes this possible, rather than typing 'no strict; no warn;' ie:
>
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl -q # for quick and dirty.
We already have a switch that me
Branden wrote:
> >
> > There was more heated discussion in the thread rooted at
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg01089.html
> > the discussion of RFC 16.
>
> Well, actually, I read that, and it pretty much discusses making `strict'
> default or not (which I believe is no
> Still would be able to do it with `use strict'. My proposal isn't going to
> replace it! As it didn't replace the default global variables! As I said, I
> don't want you to use it or even like it, I'm only wanting YAWTDI.
Right, but your approach isn't going to help in the cases where it is nee
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > But I have never found a situation where this is so useful to justify
> > the other problems it creates. However, there may well be true technical
> > reasons why
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
> the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
> taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up the following
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> I agree with this statement. Perhaps someone who was around during the
> initial 'my' discussions can shed some light on why it binds so tightly.
> I have observed you can do something like this:
>
>my $OUTER = '';
>
>if
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:49:44AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
> Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
> Peter> f
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think that:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
Personally, I don't think so.
GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
At 11:49 AM 2/15/01 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
>Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
>Peter> functions taking lis
John Porter wrote:
> Branden wrote:
> >
> > Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
> > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
>
> That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
> if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
>
> There
Branden wrote:
>
> > If you had this 'use scope' pragma, this auto-error checking would be
> > compromised severely.
>
> Actually, I think sometimes it can be done with -w (``Variable xyz used only
> once, probably spelling error'').
Except that only applies to un-declared variables, which curr
> "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
Peter> functions taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up
Peter> t
Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Tell me one. I couldn't find it.
>
> The main problem I see is cross checking. I *like* having to declare
things as
> 'my' - it catches my errors for me:
>
> my $variable;
> $varaible = 1; # mis-spelled - caught by 'use strict'.
>
Still would be able to do it with `use s
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > > my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
>
> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
> the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
> tak
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
>
> >Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on
these...
> >But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl
programmers...
>
> I've skipped pretty much all this thread so fa
> Take PHP and Python, for example.
>
>
> > > my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
> > RTFM.
> > > my ($a) = ; # after deducing (by the above) . . .
> > > # when I wanted only the first line.
> > Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an i
Branden wrote:
>
> Take PHP and Python, for example.
O.k., that's two out of the three modern languages.
That's "most". Sorry, I stand corrected.
> > Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an inconsistency of the
> > language by any means.
>
> Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always
At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
>Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on these...
>But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl programmers...
I've skipped pretty much all this thread so far, but I do need to point out
that perl isn't targeted at
At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
>
>RTFM.
Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
taking list arguments that
John Porter wrote:
> > Well, first let me say why I think a way (pragma) to do lexical-scope by
> > default (for one file/block/scope) would be good. Most (modern)
languages do
> > it
> This is false. Even languages in which lexical variables are the
> norm still require a variable declaration; i
Branden wrote:
>
> Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
There was more heated discussion in th
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and
`our')
> > for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would
be
> > used to say that a specific variable or a list of th
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and `our')
> for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would be
> used to say that a specific variable or a list of them would refer to the
> global vari
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
