Simon Cozens wrote:
For heaven's sake. Have you even *seen* the Perl 5 internals? If you don't
trust things which are self-declared scary hackery to be stable, you probably
shouldn't be using Perl until Perl 6 comes out. And probably not until then.
Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Hursh) writes:
> Um, on a somewhat unrelated note, having tried to get a department of
> mine to switch over to perl from csh and REXX of all things, I have
> co-workers I hope never see this.
They may need to write their own operating system if they want to avoid the
dodgy
John Siracusa wrote:
1. The special dir of files (SDoF). Ignoring, for now, the argument for a
standard way to do this, all the core needs to do to bootstrap an entire
ecosystem of app packagers is support some standard starting point. Maybe
it's a file names main.pl inside a *.pmx dir, or whatev
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, James Mastros wrote:
> PS -- Unreatedly, why, oh why, do people insist on an apostrophe in 80's
Maybe "in the 80's" is like "at the Jones's". Not that I care, mind you.
> and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 11:37 (-0600):
> > and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
> Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
>@array[ $foo'th ];
Maybe what I'm saying now is a really bad idea, because it doesn't make
sense, but can't we just have an adverb tha
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Juerd wrote:
> John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 11:37 (-0600):
> > > and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
> > Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
> >@array[ $foo'th ];
>
> Maybe what I'm saying now is a really bad idea, because it doesn't make
John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 12:49 (-0600):
> > 4 :th
> > $foo :th
> No. Adverbs modify verbs (operators or functions), not terms like 4 or
> $foo.
Then perhaps a method? Number::th?
4.th
$foo.th
I really dislike the apostrophe.
Juerd
James Mastros wrote:
We can, and I think should, write a one-paragraph documentation,
one-screenful implementation of this that's in perl core:
As a special case, if the "filename" argument to perl is a directory,
and the directory contains a file named "main.pl", then the directory
is prep
Thomas Seiler skribis 2004-09-07 20:23 (+0200):
> I touhght that it be nice to let module writers somehow associate their
> module with a file extention.
Most worlds don't use file extensions, except for humans. In the Windows
world, file extensions do matter, because it decides which program to
Smylers wrote:
> (But personally I'm quite happy with zero-based arrays, so as long as
> -1 continues to work for those I'm not too bothered what happens with
> other cases.)
This is an interesting point: can the perl optimizer be made to treat
0-based contiguous lists in the same way that perl 5
Hmm, this would suggest that in P6 the comment that "unlike ++,
the -- operator is not magical" should no longer apply.
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 08:09:23AM -0400, Joe Gottman wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Larry Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02,
Juerd wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
> > > 4 :th
> > > $foo :th
> > No. Adverbs modify verbs (operators or functions), not terms like 4 or
> > $foo.
>
> Then perhaps a method? Number::th?
>
> 4.th
> $foo.th
Again, with a bit of magic where the dot is optional when the object in
qu
On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 20:08, Larry Wall wrote:
> Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the
> minus notation to count from the end. We probably need to come up
> with some other notation for the beginning and end indexes. But it'd
> be nice if that were a little shorter than:
>
> @ints.shape
Jonathan Lang skribis 2004-09-07 14:12 (-0700):
> Again, with a bit of magic where the dot is optional when the object in
> question is an integer literal: 4th =:= 4.th - and probably with special
> synonyms for th when the literal is any of (1 or -1, 2 or -2, 3 or -3) -
> Number::st, Number::nd, a
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 06:07:24PM +0200, James Mastros wrote:
> 4. The single-file, platform dependent, machine language executable
> (realexe). This is a plain old executable, that does not particularly
> indicate it was generated by a "scripting" language. It requires no odd
> handing vs a
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:20:05AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:41:05AM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> : And that a pointer would be... what? Some platforms has odd
> : sizing issues for pointers. Perhaps a "voidp" type is needed?
> : (Which would just be an intN where N is size
Mark Overmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oops, someone starts the holy war (again). Wether you put the docs
> in begin or end of the file, or intermixed with the code has a lot
> to do with your personal background.
Sorry for the late reply, but I can't let this stand without further
elaborat
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:34:33PM -0400, John Macdonald wrote:
: If a int1 (or int2 or nybble or other sub-addressable sized
: value) is being referred to, a similar issue arises since most
: machines these days have byte addressing, but do not have bit
: addressing. If you can't refer directly t
Juerd wrote:
Jonathan Lang skribis 2004-09-07 14:12 (-0700):
if we want to look at the next existing element, we can say (1 +
1).th; if we want to look at the element whose index is one higher
than the first index, we can say 1.st + 1.
I read this three times, but don't get it. Can you plea
19 matches
Mail list logo
