Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation

2004-08-24 Thread Clayton Scott
David Green wrote: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote: This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget /me

Re: Auto-install (was autoloaded...)

2001-02-13 Thread Clayton Scott
Branden wrote: And I'll probably ask you to use another naming/extension, like pp5 (par for perl 5), so that modules for both versions don't get mixed up (since they'll be incompatible). That doesn't make sense. Either your script or your archive tool (par, pun, or CPAN or whatever)

Re: Auto-install (was autoloaded...)

2001-02-08 Thread Clayton Scott
Peter Scott wrote: Eh? I thought PPM was simply "perl -MCPAN -e install" for Windows users, pointed to a set of modules which have XS content that they'd had to fiddle with to port to Win32. Not by far. It is a replacment for CPAN that builds and maintains its own local database

Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X

2000-09-26 Thread Clayton Scott
"John L. Allen" wrote: The use of a caret was to prevent decimation of the user's namespace, perl -e 'print -^rwx $_' syntax error at -e line 1, near "-^" Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors. The only problem I have with a caret is that to me the

Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X

2000-09-25 Thread Clayton Scott
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: =head1 ABSTRACT File tests (-r/-w/-x/...) made sense when Perl's shellness was an attribute. Most new Perl programmers are not coming from a shell programming background, and the -X syntax is opaque and bizarre. It should be removed.

Re: pascal-like with was Re: Default filehandles(was Re: command line option: $|++)

2000-08-17 Thread Clayton Scott
*did* spark an excellent idea for me to do, with named placeholders and named subroutine parameters. Many thanks! We're still not even. I got quite a few ideas from your book. Clayton -- Clayton Scott

Re: RFC 109 (v1) Less line noise - let's get rid of @%

2000-08-15 Thread Clayton Scott
Dan Sugalski wrote: Let's not move backwards and force people to work like machines. Instead, lets force machines to work like us. Hear, Hear! I feel that this is worth a "me too". Clayton -- Clayton Scott

Re: RFC 54 (v1) Operators: Polymorphic comparisons

2000-08-09 Thread Clayton Scott
ways have issues. "dog"=="cat", but "10.0"ne"10". Both are arguably wrong--dogs aren't cats, but 10.0 really is 10... I first thought that "==" and "eq" were cut from the same cloth as "||" and "or" that is the difference was precedence. But I guess I learned. Or did I? -- Clayton Scott