Larry Wall wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:05:32AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
: Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
: have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
: side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 11:05:32AM -0500, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
: Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
: have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
: side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
: needed for most i
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 10:42:35AM +0100, Michele Dondi wrote:
: On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
:
: >#!/usr/bin/perl -e
: >$x = 1;
:
: Is this supposed to work? I would tend to consider it counter intuitive...
It occurred to me as I was dropping off to sleep last night that it
can't
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
#!/usr/bin/perl -e
$x = 1;
Is this supposed to work? I would tend to consider it counter intuitive...
#!/usr/bin/perl
v6; $x = 1;
Incidentally, and on a totally OT basis, I've noticed that Perl6 is
supposed to have v-strings. But (current) 'perldoc perld
David Storrs writes:
> On Dec 15, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
>
> > S01 says:
> >
> > # Perl 5 code is not strict by default, while Perl 6 code is. But it
> > should be easy to relax with -e or maybe even a bare version number:
>
> this would suck. Badly.
>
> We should not be opt
Paul Hodges writes:
> That said, it's the strange and usually VERY old script that doesn't
> start with
>
> use strict;
> use warnings;
Moreover, it should be a clue to us that there's a shirt stating:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
Hinting that this is the way you start a perl prog
--- David Storrs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> . . . .
> Obviously, however @Larry decide it should be, is the way it'll be
> and nothing I can say will change that.
Au contraire -- that's what this list is for.
State your opinion, man! :)
> That said: this would suck. Badly.
> We should not be
On Dec 15, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
David Storrs wrote:
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than
"strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion
Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that
David Storrs wrote:
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than
"strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion
Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that it is as slack and
forgiving as possible, and you
On Dec 15, 2004, at 5:36 PM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
I think that "slackness-on-demand" is a better policy than
"strictness-on-demand", but that, again, is just my opinion
Until now, the policy in Perl has always been that it is as slack and
forgiving as possible, and you have to ask if you w
David Storrs wrote:
Incidentally, I just want to go on record as saying that the verbosity
of class declarations in P6 is really starting to skeeve me. I keep
reminding myself that these are the edge cases that are being discussed,
that you don't need all this stuff for the common case (right?)
On Dec 10, 2004, at 11:05 AM, Abhijit Mahabal wrote:
Consider a class (e.g., the hypothetical Geometry::Triangle) that can
have several attributes (side1, side2, side3, angle1, ang_bisector1,
side_bisector, altitude1 and so forth), most of which will not be
needed for most instances of Geometry
12 matches
Mail list logo
