On Fri, 04 Aug 2000, Bart Lateur wrote:
> I think it's a bad idea. I would rather do it as the C64 did: use a very
> short function name as an alternative to "print".
>
> P "This gets printed!", "\n", "Yeah!\n";
> Unfortunately (for you), you can't use '?' because it would be
> ambiguous
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Bart Lateur wrote:
> I think it's a bad idea. I would rather do it as the C64 did: use a very
> short function name as an alternative to "print".
>
> P "This gets printed!", "\n", "Yeah!\n";
>
Just like perldl already allows(but that's an intereactive shell so we
On 03 Aug 2000 22:23:08 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>What would be the method to _avoid_ emitting something?
>
>What would be the result of
>
> open(Foo, "Bar")# Prints FILEHANDLE=0xdeadbeef
> $x++; # Prints 3
Exactly. I can think of even more cases:
* Wha
>no implicit;
>(Or 'no implicit print;' after rev 2 comes out. ;-)
Or "IMPLICIT NONE" :-)
--tom
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> What would be the method to _avoid_ emitting something?
>
> What would be the result of
>
> open(Foo, "Bar")# Prints FILEHANDLE=0xdeadbeef
> $x++; # Prints 3
>
> What makes something a 'real' void so that it would
What would be the method to _avoid_ emitting something?
What would be the result of
open(Foo, "Bar")# Prints FILEHANDLE=0xdeadbeef
$x++; # Prints 3
What makes something a 'real' void so that it would print. Vs. not
having something that would catch the
