[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Vilain) writes:
To the programmer who has some real reason not to use the regex
engine, that you don't know about, none of the above are useful.
However, if the programmer doesn't bother to explain what that reason
is, it's natural to assume that he's just being weird.
Title: RE: defining 'constants' at run time
Sam Vilain responded on 04 March 2004 11:58
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 21:55, Orton, Yves wrote;
Well, people who spend a lot of time on the message boards helping
out get a lot of questions like:
How can I replace every letter 'o' not preceded
Orton, Yves wrote:
To broad-handedly cast aside the the bearer of a question's approach
as flawed is incredibly closed minded. Pretending that you know best
for their situation is at worst arrogant and at best naive.
Not really, the respondant is a volunteer. Its up to them how to answer.
Orton, Yves wrote:
Rodent of Unusual Size on 03 March 2004 19:17 said
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Offtopic rant: why do people want/use OO for things like these??? Why not
simply have a Foo::mkconst() ?
response rant: why do people always assume that they know better what is
being attempted than
Friends:
Within the next day or so I plan to upload the first CPAN version of a
new module called Mail::Digest::Tools. This module provides users tools
in the form of Perl functions which facilitate management of local
archives of e-mail messages received in daily digest format.
Several weeks
On Wed, 2004-03-03 at 23:24, David Manura wrote:
something like this:
use T::B '1.87_1.96';
is more precise because it says The client code accepts either the 1.87 or 1.96
style interface. 3.14 will work now. In fact, the entire 1.87-3.14 range (and
possibly beyond) will accept
Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
aristotle: is there a reason you're using o-o rather than foo::mkconst?
rous: yes.
I, for one, am curious to know the reason why, so as to learn
more about interface design.
I would have thought a vigorous debate of when it is appropriate
to use
