On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:35:16 -0800, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>In the perl 5 pocket reference 3rd edition page 63, it claims that $@ is
>set to the result of an eval or do. How does this impact exception
>handling tests on $@ to determine if an exception was thrown, if $@ can
>be set by a do ? OR
Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> No, it's a misunderstanding between you and Tony. The "do" your
> reference is talking about, is of the form
>
> do FILE
>
> where file is a string containing a filename, while Tony is talking
> about the
>
> do BLOCK
>
> form. do FILE behaves just like eval() (except it rea
On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:58:57PM -0500, Steve Simmons wrote:
> > > Note that it may not be possible to satisfy conflicting requests. If
> > > module C and module C demand two different versions of the same
> > > module C, the compiler should halt and state the module conflicts.
> >
> > Pardon
With Perl 6, it will (probably) be possible to have values with boolean
value independent of integer or string values, so that it will be possible
to have a value that when viewed as string or number will be "" or 0, but
will evaluate as true in a condition.
I think this should be applied to the
Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > > Note that it may not be possible to satisfy conflicting requests.
If
> > > > module C and module C demand two different versions of the
same
> > > > module C, the compiler should halt and state the module
conflicts.
> > >
> > > Pardon me for sniping at a great RFC, but
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:43:38AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or whatever
> > its replacement is?
> >
>
> The big problem about having more than one version of a module loaded at the
> same time is with namespace
Branden wrote:
>
> I think this should be applied to the `defined' function,
Oh, no, here we go again. Branden, why do you insist on dredging
up every contentious issue which has already been beaten to death?
Maybe you need to read the archives first.
--
John Porter
You can't keep Perl6 Pe
As many of you may know, I've recently moved to the other side of the
world, and my life's a bit hectic. I hadn't counted on p6-l bursting
into life just now, and while I'd like to keep right up to date with it
I really can't guarantee daily reading.
Would anyone like to volunteer to do weekly s
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:57:13AM -0500, Kirrily Skud Robert wrote:
> Would anyone like to volunteer to do weekly summaries
Well, don't forget that I *do* have people helping me out with the weekly
summaries. I don't know how people want to play this. Do you want:
* One weekly summary of e
First of all, sorry to bother you again with this issue, but I guess it
didn't have the appropriate discussion. If you're not interested, please
don't read further...
I wrote:
> I expect Perl 6 will have some way to define its variables as being
> lexical-scoped in the sub they are used as defa
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:23:52 +, Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:57:13AM -0500, Kirrily Skud Robert wrote:
> > Would anyone like to volunteer to do weekly summaries
>
> Well, don't forget that I *do* have people helping me out with the weekly
> summaries.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and `our')
> for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would be
> used to say that a specific variable or a list of them would refer to the
> global vari
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:40:53PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > I propose the introduction of two new keywords (just like `my' and
`our')
> > for specifying a different scope: `global' and `outer'. `global' would
be
> > used to say that a specific variable or a list of th
At 09:23 AM 2/15/2001, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:57:13AM -0500, Kirrily Skud Robert wrote:
> > Would anyone like to volunteer to do weekly summaries
>
>Well, don't forget that I *do* have people helping me out with the weekly
>summaries. I don't know how people want to play t
Branden wrote:
>
> Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
There was more heated discussion in th
John Porter wrote:
> > Well, first let me say why I think a way (pragma) to do lexical-scope by
> > default (for one file/block/scope) would be good. Most (modern)
languages do
> > it
> This is false. Even languages in which lexical variables are the
> norm still require a variable declaration; i
At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
>
>RTFM.
Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
taking list arguments that
At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
>Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on these...
>But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl programmers...
I've skipped pretty much all this thread so far, but I do need to point out
that perl isn't targeted at
Branden wrote:
>
> Take PHP and Python, for example.
O.k., that's two out of the three modern languages.
That's "most". Sorry, I stand corrected.
> > Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an inconsistency of the
> > language by any means.
>
> Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always
> Take PHP and Python, for example.
>
>
> > > my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
> > RTFM.
> > > my ($a) = ; # after deducing (by the above) . . .
> > > # when I wanted only the first line.
> > Silly beginner gotchas. It's not an i
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 04:38 PM 2/15/2001 -0300, Branden wrote:
>
> >Yeah. Beginners. I was one too. And I remember always falling on
these...
> >But that's OK, since we probably don't want any new Perl
programmers...
>
> I've skipped pretty much all this thread so fa
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> At 01:15 PM 2/15/01 -0500, John Porter wrote:
> > > my $a, $b, $c;# only $a is lexically scoped
>
> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
> the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
> tak
Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Tell me one. I couldn't find it.
>
> The main problem I see is cross checking. I *like* having to declare
things as
> 'my' - it catches my errors for me:
>
> my $variable;
> $varaible = 1; # mis-spelled - caught by 'use strict'.
>
Still would be able to do it with `use s
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> Bart Lateur wrote:
> >
> > No, it's a misunderstanding between you and Tony. The "do" your
> > reference is talking about, is of the form
> >
> > do FILE
> >
> > where file is a string containing a filename, while Tony is talking
> > about
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or whatever
> its replacement is?
Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
> "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
Peter> functions taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up
Peter> t
Branden wrote:
>
> > If you had this 'use scope' pragma, this auto-error checking would be
> > compromised severely.
>
> Actually, I think sometimes it can be done with -w (``Variable xyz used only
> once, probably spelling error'').
Except that only applies to un-declared variables, which curr
John Porter wrote:
> Branden wrote:
> >
> > Well, I checked the archives, and I found that the discussion begun in
> > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg01441.html
>
> That thread was rather tame; even so, I believe the end result,
> if one can be deduced, is that the proposal is not a good one.
>
> There
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:31:34AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> With Perl 6, it will (probably) be possible to have values with boolean
> value independent of integer or string values, so that it will be possible
> to have a value that when viewed as string or number will be "" or 0, but
> will evaluat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
> > little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FILE }'
to
> > have the behaviour of not dying and setting $@ ?
>
>
At 11:49 AM 2/15/01 -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
>Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
>Peter> functions taking lis
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think that:
>
> my $a, $b, $c;
>
> should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
Personally, I don't think so.
GetOptions (foo => \my $foo,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:49:44AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> > "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Peter> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be
> Peter> given the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that
> Peter> f
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> I agree with this statement. Perhaps someone who was around during the
> initial 'my' discussions can shed some light on why it binds so tightly.
> I have observed you can do something like this:
>
>my $OUTER = '';
>
>if
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:47:55PM -0500, Steve Simmons wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or whatever
> > its replacement is?
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
perldoc perlxs
perldoc perlxstut
I don't think any proposal of
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:44:24AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
>
> Quite. But on a tangent, I see no good reason why this shouldn't be given
> the same interpretation as "my ($a, $b, $c)" on the grounds that functions
> taking list arguments that omit their parentheses swallow up the following
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > But I have never found a situation where this is so useful to justify
> > the other problems it creates. However, there may well be true technical
> > reasons why
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:04:51AM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > > Why `do FILE' behaves like eval, if there's eval to do it? Isn't this a
> > > little too much not-orthogonal? Why don't we require `eval { do FIL
> Still would be able to do it with `use strict'. My proposal isn't going to
> replace it! As it didn't replace the default global variables! As I said, I
> don't want you to use it or even like it, I'm only wanting YAWTDI.
Right, but your approach isn't going to help in the cases where it is nee
Branden wrote:
> >
> > There was more heated discussion in the thread rooted at
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg01089.html
> > the discussion of RFC 16.
>
> Well, actually, I read that, and it pretty much discusses making `strict'
> default or not (which I believe is no
Steve Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or
whatever
> > its replacement is?
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Simply put (and paraphrastically, so don't nitpick, anyone), XS is using a
funk
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra switch that
> makes this possible, rather than typing 'no strict; no warn;' ie:
>
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl -q # for quick and dirty.
We already have a switch that me
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra switch that
> > makes this possible, rather than typing 'no strict; no warn;' ie:
> >
> > #!
At 12:43 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 12:25:44PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > > well, I was thinking about this - there really should be an extra
> switch that
> > > makes this possibl
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0300, Branden wrote:
> > I find a "let's require some extra hoops and red tape" not very-Perl like.
> > Perl is there for the programmer; not the other way around.
>
> Please read ``Larry's talk in Atlanta about Perl 6'', the text is in
> http://dev.perl.org/~a
> >And in any case, make '-e' have the additional connotation that implies
> >'no strict', and 'no warn'.
>
> no 'warnings'
thanks. 'no warnings'
> > Seems simple enough to me.
> Yes, that's what I thought; but this has generated more heat than light, at
> least on the times I've brought it
At 01:03 PM 2/15/01 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00025.html
>
>Well, I agree with pretty much everything you said, except I like '-q' better
>than '-z' for aesthetic reasons.
>
>So... what was the rationale against it?
Best read the archives... I am the wrong person
Peter Scott wrote:
>
> >And in any case, make '-e' have the additional connotation that implies
> >'no strict', and 'no warn'.
>
> no 'warnings'
>
> > Seems simple enough to me.
>
> Yes, that's what I thought; but this has generated more heat than light, at
> least on the times I've brought i
> >So... what was the rationale against it?
>
> Best read the archives... I am the wrong person to ask for a statement of
> the opposing viewpoint...
hey... I'm a lazy guy.. ;-) So - I guess coming from someone who holds the
opposing viewpoint, what was it?
Ed
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:19:27PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > But I have never found a situation where this is so useful to justify
> > > the other problem
Many thanks to all for the pointers.
Paul Johnson wrote:
> I don't think any proposal of this nature would be conplete without a
> consideration of these aspects.
Agreed.
> If I have:
>
> (my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar");
>
> then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)'
> isn't.
>
> Do you really want them to behave differently?
>
> > best way to shoot down my suggestion is an example where existing behaviour
From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> > Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS
> > code, or whatever its replacement is?
>
> Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Extra code is. Which knack had you obfuscation
for could left out have been. --
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:52:01PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You mean the beaten-to-death ??, formely known as |||, operator?
>
> It has torn p5p to shreds repeatedly.
Could be worse, could be url open().
duck && cover;
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:03:21PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > If I have:
> >
> > (my $foo1, $bar1) = (my $foo2, $bar2) = ("foo", "bar");
> >
> > then '(my $foo1, $bar1)' is in void context, while '(my $foo2, $bar2)'
> > isn't.
> >
> > Do you really want them to behave differently?
> >
[resent to perl6-language, sorry for any duplicates]
Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > I personally think that this is something Larry is going to have to
> > decide. However, I would like to note that leaving these off by default
> > lowers the transition curve to Perl 6 immensely for those people th
> It was suggested to DWIM when I use my in void context, and not when
> my isn't used in void context. With the above example, such a rule
> would mean '$bar1' is my()ed, and '$bar2' isn't. That's IMO, very hard
> to explain, very hard to bugtrack and totally unexpected. Even if not
> everyone us
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:02:10PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> If we're interested in increased CPAN quality, there's a bunch of stuff
> we can do.
See also, CPANTS (totally vaporware, but its a plan)
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00148.html
> Heck, I'd even volunteer to head up a project to do th
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Also, if I have:
> >
> > @a = (1 .. 10);
> > $a, $b, $c = @_;
>
> How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated by commas
> in any context'? This is consistent
>
> $a, $b, $c = $d, $e, $f; # ($a,
At 09:01 PM 2/15/01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:08:47AM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > However, that still doesn't get rid of the gotchas - personally I think
> that:
> >
> > my $a, $b, $c;
> >
> > should be an error, a warning, or DWIM. Especially:
>
>Personally
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 10:29:33PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 08:19:27PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 09:05:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:23:10AM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > > But I have never f
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:54:37PM -0800, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> Edward Peschko wrote:
> > Right, but what I don't understand is that its two extra characters at the end
> > of a command line... whats the big deal about typing '-q' on one line in
> > scripts? Its easy enough to advertise '-q' and
On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
forgotten
> about it?
Then it isn't, technically, a perl problem.
> How many times have I wanted to use '-w' but was not able to because
> of all the junk that comes ou
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 12:32:01AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:07:51PM -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> > > Also, if I have:
> > >
> > > @a = (1 .. 10);
> > > $a, $b, $c = @_;
> >
> > How about 'an implicit parens around a set of statements separated b
I guess this was what was meant by 'put your asbestos gloves on'.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 07:57:31PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Thursday 15 February 2001 19:21, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > How many times have I wanted to put 'use strict' in a module and
> forgotten
> > about it?
>
> T
Was this trip really necessary?
Read this thread from back in September.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00167.html
There's also a whole mailing list devoted to this.
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
I've argued why warnings should be on by default (except in one-liners)
and lost. Its all been said, guys.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 11:14:01PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Was this trip really necessary?
> I've argued why warnings should be on by default (except in one-liners)
> and lost. Its all been said, guys.
hmm. It seemed like the argument went pretty good this time around.
> Even with wa
67 matches
Mail list logo
