On 4/25/02 7:42 AM, Bernie Cosell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the construct:f(a) + g(b) the compiler has the prerogative to
evaulate whichever it pleased first [and so you couldn't count on
function 'f' being called before function 'g']. I would have guessed
that Perl's expression
++a + a++
what values actually get used as operands for the '+' and what the final
resulting value of the variable are pretty bad mojo to sort out.
I would hope (wrongly again probably) that NOTHING would change; it would
be:
a = 1;
--a = 0 + a++ = 1 == 1
Which means that --a + a++ =
On 4/16/02 5:06 PM, Ton Hospel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's very well possible that I'll stubbornly keep using perl5 if perl6
comes out.
Maybe my (mis)understanding from Larry is that Perl 6 will provide a jumping
off platform into better language non-specific things that we may not see at
I have the habit of doing:
last if (substr($vFlag, 1, 3) eq 'END');
$vSub = \Sneex if (substr($vFlag, 1, 5) eq 'SNEEX');
$vSub = \Admin if (substr($vFlag, 1, 5) eq 'ADMIN');
$vSub = \Reports if (substr($vFlag, 1, 7) eq 'REPORTS');
$vSub = \Logsif (substr($vFlag, 1, 4) eq
On 4/17/02 2:22 PM, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The above implies the format is something like:
SNEEXADMINEND
in which case, suicide is an honorable option.
:)
Actually, the input data looks more like
[SNEEX]
[ADMIN]
[END]
Sorry for the mass hysteria;
On 3/20/02 12:12 AM, Randal L. Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
original twistyness has devolved to Obfuperl, and *that* has
contributed to people thinking that Perl is really inherently
obfuscated, which undermines what *I* would like to see how Perl is
perceived in the marketplace. So it
On 3/8/02 12:18 PM, Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like others did, I built a chart
perl -le 'for$i(0..9){for$j(0..9){printf%3d,$i+$j}print}'
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Speaking of charts -
May I revisit Base 36 for a moment?
I am playing around with trying to
