At 10:55 PM 8/6/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > But, if we toss refcounts, and split GC cleanup and
> > end of scope actions anyway, we need to have a mechanism to hoist things
> > out of the current scope.
>
>Why say hoist when we can say return? I can think of several ways of
>
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> But, if we toss refcounts, and split GC cleanup and
> end of scope actions anyway, we need to have a mechanism to hoist things
> out of the current scope.
Why say hoist when we can say return? I can think of several ways of
returning values that don't require the caller to a
At 03:30 PM 8/6/00 -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 02:09 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > > uplevel 0, $Perl:Warnings=1;# Hit everyone
> > > uplevel -1, $Perl:Warnings=0; # Hit my wrapper
> > Yeah, I can see that. We're going to need a mechanism to
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:09 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> > uplevel 0, $Perl:Warnings=1;# Hit everyone
> > uplevel -1, $Perl:Warnings=0; # Hit my wrapper
> Yeah, I can see that. We're going to need a mechanism to hoist things to
> outer scope levels internally (f
At 02:09 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>Then a mechanism for uplevel manipulation of variables should be used.
>
> uplevel 0, $Perl:Warnings=1;# Hit everyone
> uplevel -1, $Perl:Warnings=0; # Hit my wrapper
>
>(I think something better was proposed, but I don't recall
On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 01:21 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> >I think there are two problems. One is the naming convention, the
> >second, the global effects.
> >
> >Why not split them. The names could be improved.
> >
> >And the global nature (of the name) abolished
Then a mechanism for uplevel manipulation of variables should be used.
uplevel 0, $Perl:Warnings=1;# Hit everyone
uplevel -1, $Perl:Warnings=0; # Hit my wrapper
(I think something better was proposed, but I don't recall what it was.)
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PR
At 01:21 AM 8/6/00 -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>I think there are two problems. One is the naming convention, the
>second, the global effects.
>
>Why not split them. The names could be improved.
>
>And the global nature (of the name) abolished.
I'm not entirely sure that tossing the global nature
I think there are two problems. One is the naming convention, the
second, the global effects.
Why not split them. The names could be improved.
And the global nature (of the name) abolished.
So $^W becomes $Perl::Warnings and only has a local scope effect?
One would use whatever mechanism will
> Summary of manifesto: Global variables must be expunged.
>
> Replacing the old rotten global variables with new rotten global
> variables is not enough of an improvement.
Hurrah! http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'
At 01:10 PM 8/5/00 -0400, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
>Summary of manifesto: Global variables must be expunged.
>
>Replacing the old rotten global variables with new rotten global
>variables is not enough of an improvement.
Works for me. Globals should be for things that truly are global. ($^O, for
11 matches
Mail list logo
