Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 09:28 AM 8/8/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as
Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Proposal to utilize C* as the prefix to magic subroutines
I freely accept that this is not anything approaching a reasoned
critique but:
Yecch!
--
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:19:00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Check the docs again. [snip]
Four special subroutines act as package constructors and
destructors. These are the `BEGIN', `CHECK', `INIT', and `END'
routines. The `sub' is optional for these routines.
Drat. I propose making
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:03:16 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
If you mean that you MUST use "sub", I object. If you mean that the
"sub" may not be used, I agree.
Addendum. I would propose that
BEGIN {
...
}
would be what it is now, and that
sub BEGIN {
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
named
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:27:24AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Proposal to utilize C* as the prefix to magic subroutines
I freely accept that this is not anything approaching a reasoned
critique but:
Yecch!
That comment is as good as any :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
But what happens if you want multiple BEGIN blocks?
The same thing that happens now. As I understand it, perl compiles
and executes the BEGIN block then detroys it so that you may have as
many BEGIN blocks as you want and each time perl thinks it's the first
At 09:28 AM 8/8/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Peter Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
named blocks. I was
If you're going to use a convention, rather than a syntax, then the current
convention of all CAPS reserved to Perl is easier to understand, more
pleasing to the eye, and backwards compatible.
Good point. Maybe we're getting a little "fix-happy". :-)
-Nate
At 10:29 AM 8/7/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
With the proliferation of special subroutine names (BEGIN, END, INIT,
CHECK, etc.) the all capital subroutine names available to the
programmer has steadily shrunk. Rather than stealing subroutines from
the programmer, we should create a
At 12:55 PM 8/7/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 10:04:15AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
At 04:43 PM 8/7/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
sub *BEGIN { ... }
sub *END{ ... }
sub *INIT { ... }
sub
At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
named blocks. I was surprised to discover that they're put in the symbol
table anyway though.
Check the docs again.
From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Check the docs again. [snip]
Four special subroutines act as package constructors and
destructors. These are the `BEGIN', `CHECK', `INIT', and
13 matches
Mail list logo
