On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:49:45AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:14:52AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> > > Yes. And the modules on CPAN that already do this are interesting too.
> >
> > Oh, bother. Oh well, I've got builtinify (which was actually the point of the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:17:56 -0600, "David L. Nicol"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "currying" used in a fascinating context: an experimental
> language in which
>
> http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/#tut
In that vein, perh
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:53PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> o Will experiences from Ruby be assimilated back into Perl?
>
> o What impact will C# and .NET have on Perl 6? Don't forget
>Larry's required reading recommendation:
>http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> >
> >The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive.
>
> It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The
> only reason things have paused (and it is a pause, not a
> stop) is that
At 05:27 PM 2/19/01 +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type
> >
> > GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo),
> > bar => \my $bar);
>
>If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered
:
| Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
| the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for
4.036. I can only find man
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote:
> Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
whispered
> :
> | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that
> | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG.
>
> I don't know that I would s
Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>
> And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has
> gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly
> perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the
> difference.
Can you give me an example of t
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:49:13AM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote:
> > Hi, it's me again, the guy who won't shut up about exception handling.
> > I'm trying,
>
> I'm catching.
And I'm thowing (up :)
Graham.
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote:
> Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> >
> > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something
has
> > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something
particularly
> > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probab
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one.
I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list
context. There is no error in
@r = map { blah } @foo{$bar};
--
Bart.
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you
when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code
it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish
code, others might say is "horribly wrong".
--
John Porter
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote:
>
> > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get
> > autovivification saying:
>
> The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful.
Sometimes.
> > Sometimes it's not. And that's fine.
>
> No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of
> problems. If you get 1450 'use of
> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's
> changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying
> that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well,
> we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> >
> > I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > for clues.
> >
> > How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's?
>
> Can you confirm the actual submissio
16 matches
Mail list logo
