Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
David Wheeler wrote: On Apr 17, 2004, at 4:39 PM, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Wrong. Ponie is off the chart, or maybe more like 5.11, That's one louda, innit? I just wonder who's the drummer. -- Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iki.fi/jhi/ There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'. It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
On Apr 18, 2004, at 5:05 PM, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: That's one louda, innit? I just wonder who's the drummer. Let's just keep Arthur away from thunderstorms, shall we? ;-) David
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
On Apr 17, 2004, at 4:39 PM, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote: Wrong. Ponie is off the chart, or maybe more like 5.11, That's one louda, innit?
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
Hi Joel, I know where you can get an AS400 for the taking. Then you can really hack away like old times. Maybe you can find a card reader for it? Joe. On Apr 18, 2004, at 8:54 PM, Joel Rees wrote: On 2004.4.17, at 11:45 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: It's the 5.9.x track that has the experimentation. 5.8.x (like 5.6.x before it) are for slightly-behind-bleeding-edge adopters. Hardcore trailing edge adopters are still using Perl4 (which is also an even number :). So, on Tuesday's, when I'm in my hardcore trailing edge mood, I should use use Perl4. Sounds like a good excuse for another machine. ;-) I've got an old 68k box or two, is there a MacPerl4? Or should I download a really old version of netBSD? (Heh. Wish I really did have time to get netBSD up on my old performa 550 and 630.)
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Sherm Pendley wrote: In fact, unless you're in a *huge* hurry, I'd say wait a week and go with 5.8.4. I thought even numbered point releases were unstable, test releases. Is that not the case? -- Chris Devers
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
Andrew M. Langmead wrote: On Apr 17, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Chris Devers wrote: I thought even numbered point releases were unstable, test releases. The other way around. The odd numbered releases are the development track. (When you try to run some script against them, something goes wrong and you say oh, that seems odd!) Right. The 5.7 development track lead to the 5.8 stable release. Right. The 5.9 (Ponie) development will lead to a stable release of 5.10. Wrong. Ponie is off the chart, or maybe more like 5.11, or maybe more like 5.9+i (as in a complex number). Ponie is more or less taking the bones of Parrot (the Perl 6 virtual machine) and hanging on the flesh of Perl 5.9 (runtime). Or putting in a Porsche motor on a Mercedes body, if that sounds less gory. Or in other words, Ponie = Parrot + Perl 5.9.
Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
Gah! That's what I get for using comments! ;-) Darn right, stop that! Code is hard to write, it should be hard to read, too! ;-) 8-) That's what I like about perl. Anyway, I'm aware that slice is not a function, just surprised that neither the concept nor the syntax seems to get any treatment in either Nutshell 1st Ed. or Cookbook 2nd Ed.. (I don't own the Camel, just went straight from the Llama to Nutshell. Thought I was saving money at the time.) Well, according to the blding edge Perl 5.8.4-rc2 docs: http://search.cpan.org/~nwclark/perl-5.8.4-RC2/pod/ perldata.pod#Slices Thanks for the pointer, merlyn. So, I'm wondering about that version number. 5.8.1 is still the latest stable Perl, right? Joel
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
On Apr 16, 2004, at 9:49 PM, Joel Rees wrote: So, I'm wondering about that version number. 5.8.1 is still the latest stable Perl, right? No, 5.8.3 is the latest. sherm--
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
On Apr 16, 2004, at 7:01 PM, Sherm Pendley wrote: So, I'm wondering about that version number. 5.8.1 is still the latest stable Perl, right? No, 5.8.3 is the latest. And 5.8.4 will likely be out within a week. Regards, David
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
So, I'm wondering about that version number. 5.8.1 is still the latest stable Perl, right? No, 5.8.3 is the latest. And 5.8.4 will likely be out within a week. So, given an iBook that is going to host my personal site, should I load 5.8.3 parallel to the the 5.6 in Mac OS 10.2, or should I stick with 5.8.1? (Purpose of the parallel load is to keep the one used by the system more-or-less pristine, of course. Purpose of 5.8 is Unicode and large character sets.) Joel
Re: Suggested version for Mac OS X.2?
On Apr 16, 2004, at 11:54 PM, Joel Rees wrote: So, given an iBook that is going to host my personal site, should I load 5.8.3 parallel to the the 5.6 in Mac OS 10.2, or should I stick with 5.8.1? I'm a bit puzzled about that stick with 5.8.1 phrase - on 10.2, there's no pre-installed 5.8.1 to stick with. If you want any sort of 5.8.x, you'll have to install it, and there's no reason not to install the latest. In fact, unless you're in a *huge* hurry, I'd say wait a week and go with 5.8.4. sherm--
