dLux wrote:
>
>
> Thanks guys, you convinced me this is not a dead thing.
>
> I got some suggestion (2 phase commit support, DBI integration,
> other data source integration) from Glenn Linderman. I will improve
> this RFC with those things.
I might have mentioned this before, but I t
/--- On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 03:49:02PM -0400, David Corbin wrote:
| I think it would be a good thing, and would be another things can
| distinguish Perl from the other languages like pattern matching
| once
| did. It strikes me as one of those things that are going to end up
| adding a whol
dLux wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I've posted an RFC about transaction-enabled variables (RFC130:
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/130.pod), but I didn't get too much response
> about that. Does anyone have comment about that? I want to clarify
> the language part of that (new keyword, new pra
dLux wrote:
>
> I've posted an RFC about transaction-enabled variables (RFC130:
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/130.pod), but I didn't get too much response
I think the RFC looks fine. This would be nice thing for perl to have.
--
John Porter
From: "dLux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:32 AM
Subject: transaction-enabled variables
> I've posted an RFC about transaction-enabled variables (RFC130:
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/130.pod), but I didn't get too much response
> about that. Does anyone have commen
