Juerd wrote:
Sean O'Rourke skribis 2004-04-15 8:55 (-0700):
I find that there are still plenty of contexts in which `` is nice and
security is irrelevant.
This is the second time in this thread that I read about security being
unimportant. I still don't know what to say about it, though I feel l
John Williams skribis 2004-04-16 18:32 (-0600):
> You didn't answer his question, "which is less complicated?"
Wasn't that a rhetociral question?
Juerd
I think I have somesing missed: is it possible to open (that is read and
write) files in perl6 programmes? Those programmes that can be run under
current parrot release.
Thanks.
> From: chromatic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Perl.com has just made A12 available:
>
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html
>
> Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.
>
> Enjoy,
> -- c
This week I've celebrated my birthday, had my jaw unwired, uncovered f
In a message dated Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Juerd writes:
> Except for the shocking number of closed-minded people on this list.
Stop it, stop it, STOP IT.
I'm not asking you to stop voicing your opinion about the discussion at
hand--that would be closed-minded, after all.
I'm asking you to stop interp
Folks, this discussion seems to be spinning. All the points, on both
sides, have been made and are being repeated with only slight
variation. We've all made our cases--why don't we drop the issue for
a while and let Larry ruminate? I think we can all agree that he will
give the idea a fair heari
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perl.com has just made A12 available:
>
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html
>
> Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.
But it's all excellent good stuff. Well done Larry and Co. Now, if you
could all just hold off
Trey Harris skribis 2004-04-16 12:05 (-0700):
> I'm asking you to stop interpreting disagreement as censorship, prejudice,
> closed-mindedness, or whatever else. It's not.
I never did interpret disagreement as anything but disagreement, and
never said that I think everyone who disagrees is closed
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 05:30:01PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Perl.com has just made A12 available:
>
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html
>
> Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.
>
> Enjoy,
> -- c
It's here, it's here, it's he!!
*
On 4/17/04 6:22 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
> chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.
>
> But it's all excellent good stuff. Well done Larry and Co. Now, if you
> could all just hold off with the questions 'til Monday you'll make a
> sum
The upshot of these rules is that a private method call is
essentially a subroutine call with a method-like syntax. But the
private method we're going to call can be determined at compile
time, just like a subroutine.
Is it permissible to use variable dispatch for private methods?
class Cerebe
chromatic wrote:
Perl.com has just made A12 available:
I started reading it last night, and ended up going to bed before I was
finished. But I just wanted to say that this:
With this dispatcher you can continue by saying "next METHOD".
is the sort of genius that makes me glad Larry's design
If it's not totally obvious to everyone, you should download a copy of A12
(I like the "printer-friendly" all-in-one-page version) as a hedge against
the almost-inevitable slashdotting.
I do not understand one of the examples in the Use of methods/the dot
notation section:
$obj.method ($x + $y) + $z
>From the earlier examples (like $obj.method +1), I got the impression that
you look ahead until you find a term or an operator. In the example above,
isn't ($x + $y) a full term, al
14 matches
Mail list logo
