On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:13PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:56:33PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > > Uhm, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You cannot distinguish
> > > between Windows 95
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:07:10PM -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
> > > True, but you can't do any of all that without knowing the platform
> > > accurately (nontrivial and requires core mod or XS). Once that's
> > > done, the rest is just a matter of extending File::
Uri Guttman wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why does it work that way?
>
> people wanted access the the actual values of a hash when doing
> foreach ( values %hash )
> so they can mung them.
Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how".
Apparently chop() is specialized in
J. David Blackstone wrote:
> Yeah, that was one of my disappointments when I finally made the
> Java plunge last month. I kind of expected integers to be objects in
> what I had heard was the "perfect, pure" OO language.
Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
"32 b
Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
> Don't get smug because Perl can iterate over
Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected
> desire.
> What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there,
what
> kind of signature it has, whether file Bar will be there, what kind of
> format it has,
> "JP" == John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JP> Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how".
JP> Apparently chop() is specialized internally to detect the
JP> hashness of its argument, in a way that can't be expressed
JP> by a prototype.
well, according to this
perl5.
Jeanna FOx wrote:
> Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
> Don't get smug because Perl can iterate over an array of anything
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:14:04PM -0200, Branden wrote:
> Well, if a compiler can't figure it out that the types of the
> variables "Object" and "int" are different and it should make
> a conversion to assign one from the other, well, then the
> compiler writers are damn bad programmers!
The
> Perhaps you meant that Perl 6 is going to have homogeneous arrays, in
> which case an array of ints would keep 32 bits (per value) of int data in
> the array and auto-generate the extra flags and stuff when a value is
> extracted from the array. That's possible, but it's a special case of small
David Mitchell wrote:
> Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> > "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> > salvaged. What would he think of Perl's "224 bit non-object ints"?!
> > Don't get smu
Jeanna FOx wrote:
> It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the
> mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it
> off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would rather
> loose the illusion of safety to get better performance.
At 12:20 PM 1/29/2001 -0500, Jeanna FOx wrote:
>David Mitchell wrote:
> > Jeanna FOx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Everybody seems to be missing the fact that jwz bitching about Java's
> > > "32 bit non-object ints" means that at least he thinks they could be
> > > salvaged. What would he think
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:39:42AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Uri Guttman wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why does it work that way?
> >
> > people wanted access the the actual values of a hash when doing
> > foreach ( values %hash )
> > so they can mung them.
>
> Yes; but the
where are all RFCs posted for perl6?
is this the main discussion board for perl6
development, or has the development broken down
into separate group-lists? if it's broken down,
where would i find a listing of lists?
thanks much,
Mark Koopman
Software Engineer
WebSideStory, Inc
10182 Teles
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:47:47 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>well, according to this
>
>perl5.6.0 -le '%h = qw( a b c d ); $_ .= 1 for %h ; print values %h ; chop %h ; print
>values %h'
>b1d1
>bd
>
>it doesn't appear to be a chop specific thing. unraveling a hash always
>seems to use aliases for the
: Jeanna FOx wrote:
: > It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the
: > mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it
: > off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would rather
: > loose the illusion of safety to get better pe
I didn't post up jwz's grumblings to kick off Yet Another Java vs Perl
Argument. Nor did I post it to point out that he's a curmudgeonly
young fart (which he is, but that's not a Bad Thing). Its there
because he made alot of good points which apply to Perl.
Keep the discussion focused there, on
At 12:54 PM 1/29/2001 -0800, Thomas Butler wrote:
>: Jeanna FOx wrote:
>: > It also looks like some features are impossible to turn off -- like the
>: > mandatory locking that jwz hates about Java. It's not safe to turn it
>: > off, but it's not really safe with it on either. Some people would ra
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:37:22AM -0800, Mark Koopman wrote:
> where are all RFCs posted for perl6?
> is this the main discussion board for perl6
> development, or has the development broken down
> into separate group-lists? if it's broken down,
> where would i find a listing of lists?
http://d
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 10:39:42AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Yes; but the question isn't really "why", it's "how".
> Apparently chop() is specialized internally to detect the
> hashness of its argument, in a way that can't be expressed
> by a prototype.
That's what I thought, but no. The hash
"Branden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, C++ has no GC, which is a good thing, but you can always
> fake it with Refcounts, which is much more efficient, and easily
> feasable with C++.
Err... current research shows that the refcount approach is one of the
slowest forms of GC, and it d
22 matches
Mail list logo
