Re: RFC 99 (v1) Maintain internal time in Modified Julian (not epoch)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Midnight, Jan 1, 2000, Greenwich time > > seems like a good candidate. have found 2000-03-01 to be a good epoch. It makes -mm-dd decoding and leap year calculations cheaper/simpler as it is the closest start of a new 400 yea

Re: command line option: $|++

Command line options aren't really a language issue, however I'm not sure that there is a better list for them. Anyone on bootstrap got any good ideas? K. -- Kirrily Robert -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- http://netizen.com.au/ Open Source development, consulting and solutions Level 10, 500 Collins

Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @%

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Karl Glazebrook wrote: > or one could just *use* english plurals... > I tried this once with filters. It sort of worked. (With the obvious bombs, of course.) > my $speaker = 'Jim'; > my $speakers = ('Fred','Bill','Sally','Betty'); > > my $male_speakers = $speakers[0:1]; #

Re: command line option: $|++

Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > > Well, now it's my turn to suggest something ;-> How about we give > perl the ability to look for a .perlrc file? (Yes, I know the reasons > against, but everything is up for grabs now right? :-) If we do this, it should be off by default. csk/ksh make you turn i

Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @%

On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 05:45:04PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote: > I hope people will actually read the RFC before coming back with these > canned responses which I (and presumably everyone else on this list) > am completely familiar with. I used to believe that too! Honest... I think you do a si

Re: English language basis for "throw"

John Porter wrote: > So, instead of "throw": "throwup". That leads me down the path of "puke" and "scrub" instead of "throw" and "catch". Actually, I rather liked the "oops" Scott suggested, but used in place of "throw" instead of a rename of "exception". So how about "oops" and "recover" inst

Re: RFC 99 (v1) Maintain internal time in Modified Julian (not epoch)

Jonathan Scott Duff wrote: > >> standard like 0 AD isn't bad. > > Standard for whom? I bet there are *millions* of Jews for whom "0 AD" > is meaningless. s/Jews/ calendar that predates christianity>/ Good point. Unix epoch it is! :-) -Nate

<    1   2   3