-Original Message-
From: Bart Lateur [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PROTOPROPOSAL FOR NEW BACKSLASH was Re: implied pascal-like
"with" or "express"
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:03:48 -0600 (MDT), Nathan Torkington wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think what David wanted was an easy way
to reference other keys of an hash while creating one, ie:
How to do this, in a line:
%h = ( first = 10 );
$h{second} = $h{first} * 2;
Because, as I'm sure you know, this code (when run w/out strict):
[snip]
-Original Message-
From: Markus Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Another way to achieve the same result would be to NOT get rid of the try
part of try/catch and then try automatically implies use fatal for that
block...
--
Markus Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[/snip]
So that was:
-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
-Original Message-
From: Barrie Slaymaker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It basically allows the programmer to "try" a certain action and see what
the
effects are going to be (i.e. handle the exception) so that some action
can
then be taken based on the results
This seems like a good idea, to me.
-Corwin
From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
IMHO trading six RFCs for two will greatly improve the chance of passing.
This seems like a good idea, to me.
-Corwin
From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
IMHO trading six RFCs for two will greatly improve the chance of passing.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
For the record, I prefer hashes for that sort of thing too. But
perl has traditionally done ordered list returns, and I followed in
that vein.
Perhaps Damian's want() (RFC 21) can be used to allow allow either
From: Peter Bevan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
snip
Error handling should be supported by it's own keyword i.e.:
trap {
#CODE
}
release (error) {
# ERROR
}
/snip
I think this is touched on by RFC# 3 wherein I ask for user definable error
messages. With those one could presumably set an
From: Ted Ashton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I don't particularly mind the last two - in fact they add some benefits
(like not modifying the original), which are nice to have. However, that
first one, frankly, drives me nuts.
Please reread the proposal. chomp() called in void context
I'm just clarifying beacause it came up in language-flow.
Language issues are issues which affect the verbs (print, die, etc) and
nouns (%SIG, $/) globaly available in Perl.
Language Flow issuses would then be issues which affect flow control?
Does this sound right?
Corwin Brust
Software
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
As in - maybe it's time for...
-Corwin
Corwin Brust Software Engineer
Alliance Data Systems
formerly Harmonic Systems, Inc.
701 Fourth Ave South, Suite-1600
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Office (612) 672-3584
Mobil(612) 239-8073
Email[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I thought that that was just the plan.
Form sub lists to collect ideas that needed hashing, if that hashing got
involved make sub-lists to reach consensus on those.
You have a nice thread handeling mail client, don-ch tom?
-Corwin
-Original Message-
From: Tom Christiansen
snip
=head1 DESCRIPTION
The C{} in Ceval{} and Cdo{} do not define blocks. This is a
problem because Cdo {} while is the only way to get a bottom-testing
"loop". This is not a real loop because the statement modifier version
of Cwhile modifies the Cdo statement, not the non-block of code
in
15 matches
Mail list logo
