On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 11:21 -0500, Patrick R. Michaud wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:17:13AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:

> > Maybe we could define an "ok" operator that suppresses only the
> > *first* warning produced by its argument(s).  Then if you get multiple
> > warnings, you at least get some indication that you've overgeneralized,
> > even if the "wrong" warning comes out.  Or maybe it only suppresses
> > the first warning till you get a second warning, and then it prints both.

> And after the third warning, it sends you to your room with no supper.

Talk about a strict permission system.  If that's the case, I want a
"I'm the human here, darnit!" option to bypass it.

-- c

Reply via email to