On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 06:52:56AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:02:01PM -0500, David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:12:06PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his
> > > "answerin
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 08:02:01PM -0500, David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:12:06PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> > I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his
> > "answering machine".
> >
> > All very clever stuff, but the subject of the
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:12:06PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his
> "answering machine".
>
> All very clever stuff, but the subject of the email is given below:
>
> "answering machine message, most recently updated 100/11/14"
>
> W
I just sent Randal an email and got an automated response from his
"answering machine".
All very clever stuff, but the subject of the email is given below:
"answering machine message, most recently updated 100/11/14"
What do you think? Joke or bug?
Dave...
--
http://www.dave.org.uk | [EMAIL
Hi,
Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> Paul Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, John wrote:
> >
> > > David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let y
Hi,
John wrote:
>
> David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > > > AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
> > >
> > > I can't
Mark Fowler wrote:
>
> > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
>
> I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in
> reception[1] in the sales pitch. I thin
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 06:46:23PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:45:11PM -0500, David H. Adler wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:54AM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> > >
> > > /me thinks more people should demand silly toys as signing-on bonuses
> >
> > http://w
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:45:11PM -0500, David H. Adler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:54AM +, David Cantrell wrote:
> >
> > /me thinks more people should demand silly toys as signing-on bonuses
>
> http://www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/desk.html
Old news mate :-)
I didn't get a sil
David Hodgkinson writes:
> > If we can get past Larry, I imagine we'll make really rapid
> > progress.
>
> Is a coup out of the question?
The emergency backup plan of airlifting him from California to
Colorado and chaining him to the keyboard remains a backup plan.
Will advise HQ when time is ri
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we can get past Larry, I imagine we'll make really rapid
> progress.
Is a coup out of the question?
--
Dave Hodgkinson, http://www.hodgkinson.org
Editor-in-chief, The Highway Star http://www.deep-purple.co
David Hodgkinson writes:
> Ah...but you don't have to actually _add_ the features, right?
Right, but neither do we want to spend ages trying to design perl6 to
support some crackhead feature only to have Larry say "no! bloody!
way!"
perl6 has really filled me with confidence in Perl. The dwind
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Wistow writes:
> > > Or am I missing something?
> >
> > But you have to think about what new features you want to add when
> > you're redesigning the internals.
>
> What he said. One reason to rework the internals is to make it
> possible t
Simon Wistow writes:
> > Or am I missing something?
>
> But you have to think about what new features you want to add when
> you're redesigning the internals.
What he said. One reason to rework the internals is to make it
possible to add new features that would be impossible or prohibitively
sl
David Hodgkinson wrote:
> Or am I missing something?
But you have to think about what new features you want to add when
you're redesigning the internals.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:17:54AM +, David Cantrell wrote:
>
> /me thinks more people should demand silly toys as signing-on bonuses
http://www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/desk.html
--
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
"We Americans stand on the shoulders of f
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yup, but the *real* point of perl6 is not to radically redesign the
> language (although a little housekeeping is a good thing), but more to
> redesign the internals. If we have to stick with perl5, we're in
> trouble. The internals are verra nast
Piers Cawley writes:
> Heh. However, from what I've seen, some of the stuff that's being
> discussed in perl6-internals has the look of stuff that may still be
> useful if we stick with perl 5, so even if it's "Not at all" there may
> prove to be benefits.
>
> Also, the way some of the perl6-lang
Anyone have a contact for someone preferably in London who deals with
Sun bits and bobs? I've got an Ultra 5 here in need of TLC...
Ta,
Dave
Philip Newton sent the following bits through the ether:
> One of the avant-garde, I see :-)
Moi?
> (Which build?)
It's perl-current, of course (as of 10am). Doesn't everyone do this?
Leon
--
Leon Brocard.http://www.astray.com/
yapc::Europe...
Leon Brocard wrote:
> /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.7.0/i686-linux/XML/Parser.pm line 185
^
One of the avant-garde, I see :-)
(Which build?)
Cheers,
Philip
Andy Williams wrote:
> eval('push @{$DIRSTRUCT'.$dir.'}, $f');
Urgle. Don't use string eval without vetting your data.
Try the version I submitted a couple of minutes ago. I'm afraid it's a bit
more readable, though.
Cheers,
Philip
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Mark Rogaski wrote:
>The danger of relying on Moore's law to overcome computational
>intractablity is that we fail to account for the fact that the inputs are
>increasing at an accelerated rate, too. I'm not sure if it is fair to say
>that average datasets increase exponenti
Andy Williams sent the following bits through the ether:
>
While we're at it (and not to mention the mismatched tags):
not well-formed (invalid token) at line 6, column 15, byte 65 at
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.7.0/i686-linux/XML/Parser.pm line 185
;-) Leon
ps sorry
--
Leon Brocard...
An entity claiming to be Greg McCarroll ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: ok, but it gets more interesting as take into account moores law that
: reduces the effectiveness of optmisation by halving the improvement
: of the optimization every year, this of course then compares to programmers
:
I'm
Thanks for the help guys.
Unless anyone has a different to make it less readable (I need job
security :) it now looks like this:
my %DIRSTRUCT;
my $directory = '\\gbu';
find(\&getfiles, $directory);
getfiles("GBU");
print Dumper(%DIRSTRUCT);
sub getfiles {
#print $File::Find::name
Andy Williams wrote:
> I'm using File::Find to recursively get all the files from a directory
> structure, then splitting each $File::Find::name into an array.
> What I need to do is put this into a data structure like:
> $dirstruct{"mydir"}->{dir1}->{dir2}->["A.A","B.B"]
> $dirstruct{"mydir"}->{d
Andy Williams wrote:
> I'm using File::Find to recursively get all the files from a directory
> structure, then splitting each $File::Find::name into an array.
> What I need to do is put this into a data structure like:
> $dirstruct{"mydir"}->{dir1}->{dir2}->["A.A","B.B"]
> $dirstruct{"mydir"}->{d
David Cantrell wrote:
> # untested code
> $file=~!(.*)/(.*)!;
> ($dir, $file)=($1, $2); # Get the directory and filename portions
> # there's a module to do that, but I can't remember what it's called
File::Basename, probably. Or maybe File::Spec->splitdir().
> $dir=~s!/!}{!; $dir='{'.$dir.'}';
An entity claiming to be Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: Maybe that's not quite as snappy as the Brocard's. Hmm. It would be
: easier if I could type omegas and stuff.
:
Unless there is some reason you need the tight bound, big-O is fine.
Mark
--
Mark Rogaski |
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 09:16:57AM -0500, Andy Williams wrote:
> What I need to do is put this into a data structure like:
>
> $dirstruct{"mydir"}->{dir1}->{dir2}->["A.A","B.B"]
>
> The directory listing would be:
> /dir1/dir2/A.A
> /dir1/dir2/B.B
>
> $file =~ s/^\\//g;
> my @fp = spl
From: DJ Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 10 January 2001 14:33
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:47:27PM -, Dean S Wilson wrote:
> > Was anyone on list involved in the beta reading of this one?
> >
> >
> http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=1884777937
> >
> > If so did it
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 07:47:27PM -, Dean S Wilson wrote:
> Was anyone on list involved in the beta reading of this one?
>
> http://www1.fatbrain.com/asp/bookinfo/bookinfo.asp?theisbn=1884777937
>
> If so did it look promising?
It was going in the right direction, but there hasn't seemed t
Hi
I'm using File::Find to recursively get all the files from a directory
structure, then splitting each $File::Find::name into an array.
What I need to do is put this into a data structure like:
$dirstruct{"mydir"}->{dir1}->{dir2}->["A.A","B.B"]
$dirstruct{"mydir"}->{dir1}->{dir3}->{dir4}->["C.C
Paul Sharpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, John wrote:
>
> > David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > > > > AL Digital are hirin
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, John wrote:
> David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > > > AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
> >
David Hodgkinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > > AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
> >
> > I can't believe that you didn't mention t
David Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > the best way to do this, if you see something is N^2 is to figure out
> > how you could do it with a sort and hey presto it usually can be turned
> > into NlogN+N .. NlogN
>
> This would involve beat
Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the best way to do this, if you see something is N^2 is to figure out
> how you could do it with a sort and hey presto it usually can be turned
> into NlogN+N .. NlogN
This would involve beating aforementioned programmers round the head
with Programmi
* Peter Corlett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > ok, but it gets more interesting as take into account moores law that
> > reduces the effectiveness of optmisation by halving the improvement of the
> > optimization every year [...]
>
> This depends. If yo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> ok, but it gets more interesting as take into account moores law that
> reduces the effectiveness of optmisation by halving the improvement of the
> optimization every year [...]
This depends. If you're just doing an optimisation that changes one O(N)
a
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Err... Twice as fast is still twice as fast when it's running on a
> > processor that's twice as fast as it would have been. I now can't
> > remember where I read a fascinating piece on the value of more
> > efficient algorithms as computers got faster.
David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:10:29AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > [1] Table top cabinet[2] with a PC running MAME inside.
> > > [2] The kind you can rest a pint on.
> >
> > Yargh! And here's me, wi
> Err... Twice as fast is still twice as fast when it's running on a
> processor that's twice as fast as it would have been. I now can't
> remember where I read a fascinating piece on the value of more
> efficient algorithms as computers got faster. But it was worth
> reading. It was by that guy.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 11:10:29AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [1] Table top cabinet[2] with a PC running MAME inside.
> > [2] The kind you can rest a pint on.
>
> Yargh! And here's me, with no way I'm going to commute to Chiswick
> from Newark-on-
Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
>
> I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in
> reception[1] in the sa
Greg McCarroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation
> >
> > Okay, I was making it up on the fly; - They're meant to be the functions
> > you're implementing. Hence O(x(n)) is running
Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> > AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
>
> I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in
> reception[1] in the sa
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation
>
> Okay, I was making it up on the fly; - They're meant to be the functions
> you're implementing. Hence O(x(n)) is running time of x on the data n,
> and the same for y.
>
> I
> what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation
Okay, I was making it up on the fly; - They're meant to be the functions
you're implementing. Hence O(x(n)) is running time of x on the data n,
and the same for y.
I think the point I was trying to make about future prog
* Mark Fowler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless absolutely necessary,
>
> Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless O(x(n)) > O(y(n)) and n is
what are O(x(n)) and O(y(n)), i'm not familiar with the x and y notation
--
Greg McCarroll
> While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
> AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
I can't believe that you didn't mention the really cool arcade machine in
reception[1] in the sales pitch. I think that most Perl Mongers would be
> Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless absolutely necessary,
Thou shalt optimise for programmer time unless O(x(n)) > O(y(n)) and n is
a suitably large value, where programmer time is both the time for the
current programming task and any future programming time that may be
expended mai
Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley writes:
> > > As Piers said, we are blocked on Larry. We're working on some
> > > interpreter design now, but some language issues really need to be
> > > nailed down before we know what we're going to be writing.
> >
> > Any idea how
Yep,
While hiring seems to be the order of the day, just to let you know that
AL Digital are hiring at the moment .. (permies only at the moment) ...
http://www.aldigital.co.uk/ has the details of the company and the
positions ...
Ben Laurie (Author of Apache SSL) is one of our directors ..
55 matches
Mail list logo
