On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:03:00AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
4) The *only* tools you will need to build parrot are a C compiler
environment and either a make tool or a shell
I believe we may be able to get away without a make tool or a shell.
It won't be pretty, but I see no reason why we
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 12:12:52PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:03:00AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
4) The *only* tools you will need to build parrot are a C compiler
environment and either a make tool or a shell
I believe we may be able to get away without a
Nicholas Clark:
# On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 07:03:00AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
# 4) The *only* tools you will need to build parrot are a C compiler
# environment and either a make tool or a shell
#
# I believe we may be able to get away without a make tool or a shell.
The final build system
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 02:45, Brent Dax wrote:
So, building Parrot ought to look something like this (for a Windows
user):
c:\parrot cd build
c:\parrot\build win32
Are you using MS VC++? [yn] y
compiler crap cut out
Miniparrot build complete.
Enter
"foo.bar" ne "www.foo.bar"
pronounce("foo.bar") eq pronounce("www.foo.bar")
As in, "Surf to www.perl.org and read the new ..."
sounds like
"Surf to perl dot org and read the new ..."
=Austin
--- Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The "www" in e.g., "www.netscape.com" is pronounced,
The "www" in e.g., "www.netscape.com" is pronounced, IMO, in
the same way as other useless, should-be-obvious punctuation.
It's silent.
Seems like something you should take up with RFC 819, or maybe with
RFC 881, considering that they and their ramifying successors all
seem to be in flagrant
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 20:58:02 -0700, Daniel Chetlin wrote:
I use "dub dub dub", which I picked up at Intel. I find it much easier to
pronounce quickly than anything that uses an approximant.
http://x74.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=603967285
I do like "wibbly". Or "wibble". It has a
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
If you want to save the world, come up with a better way to say "www".
(And make it stick...)
"The world"? This problem only exists in English!
We pronounce it something similar to "way
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall wrote:
If you want to save the world, come up with a better way to say "www".
(And make it stick...)
"The world"? This problem only exists in English!
We pronounce it something similar to "way way way".
--
Bart.
I think this is fraught with peril. I'd have expected:
print (1, 2, 3, ...) or die;
to print
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728etc
No, if that's what you wanted, you'd get it with
print( 1, 2, 3 .. ) # RFC 24
Larry Wall wrote:
Either that, or it's a funny unary operator that can take 0 or 1 argument.
But I'd be happy with just ... as a statement. Dwimming the unary
operator may not be worth it. Especially since it might be confused
with the binary operator.
Could you make it "evaporate"
Damian Conway wrote:
I think this is fraught with peril. I'd have expected:
print (1, 2, 3, ...) or die;
to print
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728etc
No, if that's what you wanted, you'd get it with
print( 1, 2, 3 .. ) # RFC 24
--
John
Larry Wall wrote:
I'd entertain a proposal that ... be made a valid term that happens
to do nothing, so that you can run your examples through perl -c for
syntax checks. Or better, make it an official "stub" for rapid
prototyping, with some way of getting a warning whenever you execute
Damian Conway wrote:
Easy. I'll just add a Cthing operator to Q::S. It would take no
arguments and return a (lazy?) list of every possible Perl subroutine.
PS: Can you tell whether I'm joking?
I think you're both joking AND not joking, at the same time.
--
John Porter
We're
The interesting thing about ... is that you have to be able to
deal with it a statement with an implied semicolon:
print "foo";
...
print "bar";
We already have plenty of statements with implied semicolons:
print "foo";
for @list {}
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: We already have plenty of statements with implied semicolons:
:
: print "foo";
: for @list {}
: print "bar";
Yes, we do, and I'm trying to figure out how to write a prototype for
one of those. :-) / 2
: I'd have expected:
:
: print (1,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: We already have plenty of statements with implied semicolons:
:
: print "foo";
: for @list {}
: print "bar";
Yes, we do, and I'm trying to figure out how to write a prototype for
one of those. :-) / 2
Under RFC 128 and the
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:01:20PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
Larry Wall writes:
I'd entertain a proposal that ... be made a valid term that happens
to do nothing, so that you can run your examples through perl -c for
syntax checks. Or better, make it an official "stub" for rapid
-Original Message-
From: Ed Mills [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Excellent idea- anything to get to production faster!
But don't {} or {1} sort of do the same thing?
I think the point here is readability, not unique functionality.
There more then one way to do it :)
-Corwin
Excellent idea- anything to get to production faster!
But don't {} or {1} sort of do the same thing?
From: Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ... as a term
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 09:09:01 -0700 (PDT)
Randal L. Schwartz writes:
: if ($a == $b) { ... } #
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 05:49:39PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I take it the existing C... operator would be unaffected?
Essentially. The lexer is (and will continue to be) quite aware of the
difference between terms and operators.
Oops, just read this. Ignore my
Larry Wall writes:
I'd entertain a proposal that ... be made a valid term that happens
to do nothing, so that you can run your examples through perl -c for
syntax checks. Or better, make it an official "stub" for rapid
prototyping, with some way of getting a warning whenever you execute
Larry Wall writes:
I'd entertain a proposal that ... be made a valid term that happens
to do nothing, so that you can run your examples through perl -c for
syntax checks. Or better, make it an official "stub" for rapid
prototyping, with some way of getting a warning
23 matches
Mail list logo
