On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Philip Newton wrote:
> (Don't know whether CPAN.pm knows this for you. It may.)
Yes, it does.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20 8980 5714 (Home)
http://colondot.net/ Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942 (Mobile)
Knebel's Law: It
Mark Fowler wrote:
> b) This is how to get objects from CPAN, these are a few
> critical classes that you need to know about. E.g. this
> is Data::Dumper, it's fscking useful. LWP::Simple is
> your friend. Etc, etc. Something of a quick tour.
LWP::Simple is a good example, since
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:37:13PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Useful as debuggers are, there are instances where print statements
> are the superior tool. If you are debugging code that has to interact
> with another process that is not under debugger control, and in a
> timely manner, then
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:09:19AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> Let me explain the set-up. I have a PC running Win95.
OK, so the contract market's gone to the dogs.
Paul
* Nathan Torkington ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Never ever think conferences are
> easy.
>
*shock*
--
Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:37:13PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (BTW does anyone know of any open source memory leak detection
> tools?)
GNU checker is surprisingly good. Unfortunately, I'm in offline mode
right now and can't find a URL. It's gccchecker in Debian.
--
It's 106 miles from Bi
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:37:13PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Sorry, but I have to disagree. Firstly, I don't see how a debugger
> > (visual or not) is much use with the 2 cases you cited. For memory
> > leaks there are specialised tools like Purify &
> >
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:37:13PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. Firstly, I don't see how a debugger
> (visual or not) is much use with the 2 cases you cited. For memory
> leaks there are specialised tools like Purify &
> Boundschecker. Commercial and not cheap I
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:03:02PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> But debugging tools can be very very good .. If anyone has used the Borland
> Turbo Debugger for C / C++ you'll know what I mean . even the old DOS
> version is just plain brilliant .. step around code, change registers, place
> watc
Hamlet D'Arcy writes:
> From listening to the conversation about debugging tools, it seems to me
> that the perspective of the list might be skewed. Print statements are great
> when you're debugging your own code or even someone else's code on small
> projects...
>
> But what about thos
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:45:20PM -, Robert Shiels wrote:
>
> [1]slight simplifiction, but pretty much true, if there are any other SAP
> people here :-)
/me just manages to resist going on and on about SAP's debugger
dj
"eee, it was much better in the 80s"
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:55:49PM -, Hamlet D'Arcy wrote:
> >From listening to the conversation about debugging tools, it seems to me
> that the perspective of the list might be skewed. Print statements are great
> when you're debugging your own code or even someone else's code on small
>
>From listening to the conversation about debugging tools, it seems to me
that the perspective of the list might be skewed. Print statements are great
when you're debugging your own code or even someone else's code on small
projects...
But what about those times where you are handed a folder f
From: "Robin Szemeti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 22 March 2001 12:03
Subject: Re: Perl Training Courses
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, you wrote:
>
> > > The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled
with
> > > j
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> > The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with
> > judiciously placed print statements. -Kernighan, 1978
> >
> Still my debugger of choice for most languages, my code is littered with
> commented debug print statements.
well .. yes ..
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:36:01AM +, Dean wrote:
> Wait till Activestate get their IDE's out for Linux
It's already out, I thought. Needs Perl and Python and all sorts of bits and
pieces installed.
--
People who love sausages, respect the law, and work with IT standards
shouldn't watch an
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, you wrote:
> >> / me delurks - don't worry, you won't see much of me round here :)
> >
> > But... why??
>
> Why I delurked, or why you won't see much of me on this list? The answer to
> both is that I'll only post if I have something useful to contribute, and
> seeing as I'
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 06:09:19AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> Not sure they can even spell 'ssh' here :)
>
> Let me explain the set-up. I have a PC running Win95. I access a number
> of IBM AIX machines using putty. When I first joined, I asked about the
> possibility of getting Exceed installed,
From: "Simon Cozens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 22 March 2001 10:33
Subject: Re: Perl Training Courses
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:41:07PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> > You have a decent Perl debugger. It's called perl -d.
>
>
At 22 Mar 2001 09:02:31 +, Dave Hodgkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:37:39 + (GMT), Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 2001, Mar, 21, Cross, Dave wrote:
> > >
> > > > >And how about: a decent Perl debugge
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 06:41:07PM +, Dave Cross wrote:
> You have a decent Perl debugger. It's called perl -d.
The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with
judiciously placed print statements. -Kernighan, 1978
--
use POSIX;e(1);sub e{my($x,$o,$O)=@_;($x--+22)&&$
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 04:45:57AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > You have a decent Perl debugger. It's called perl -d.
> >
> > Eugh. perl -d:ptkdb please.
>
> Yeah. Now use that when you only have telnet access to your development
> system :-/
Not even an ssh connection?
> > Now with add
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> Oh, it's not me - it's the environment I'm currently working in.
>
> Dave...
> [not a Luddite]
>
I can vouch for that REALLY bad environment!!
Andy
[Not a Luddite either]
Dave Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:37:39 + (GMT), Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2001, Mar, 21, Cross, Dave wrote:
> >
> > > >And how about: a decent Perl debugger (that also happens to be
> > > >free).
> > >
> > > You have a decent Perl debugger
At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 10:07:38 + (GMT), Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2001, Mar, 22, Thu, Cross, Dave wrote:
>
> > > Now with added pointy and clickyness.
> >
> > Now with added Ludditeness.
> >
> > Dave.
>
> Luddite n 1 : any opponent of technological progress [syn: {Luddite}]
On 2001, Mar, 22, Thu, Cross, Dave wrote:
> > Now with added pointy and clickyness.
>
> Now with added Ludditeness.
>
> Dave.
Luddite n 1 : any opponent of technological progress [syn: {Luddite}]
2: one of the 19th century English workman who destroyed labor-saving
machinery that they thought w
At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:37:39 + (GMT), Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2001, Mar, 21, Cross, Dave wrote:
>
> > >And how about: a decent Perl debugger (that also happens to be
> > >free).
> >
> > You have a decent Perl debugger. It's called perl -d.
>
> Eugh. perl -d:ptkdb p
On 2001, Mar, 21, Cross, Dave wrote:
> >And how about: a decent Perl debugger (that also happens to be free).
>
> You have a decent Perl debugger. It's called perl -d.
>
Eugh. perl -d:ptkdb please.
Now with added pointy and clickyness.
Later.
Mark.
--
print "\n",map{my$a="\n"if(lengt
At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 07:18:05 +, celia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David H. Adler wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:22:34PM +, celia wrote:
> >>
> >> / me delurks - don't worry, you won't see much of me round here :)
> >
> > But... why??
>
> Why I delurked, or why you won't see m
David H. Adler wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:22:34PM +, celia wrote:
>>
>> / me delurks - don't worry, you won't see much of me round here :)
>
> But... why??
Why I delurked, or why you won't see much of me on this list? The answer to
both is that I'll only post if I have something u
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:22:34PM +, celia wrote:
>
> / me delurks - don't worry, you won't see much of me round here :)
But... why??
dha
--
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
philosophy department
- you don't have to be to work here, but it hel
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 12:15:17AM -, Dean S Wilson wrote:
> Anyone submitting anything for this?
> http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2001/
Yup, I've been approached for some tutorials for that.
--
It's a short step from using alt.binaries.warez.protocol-droids.c3p0 to
Palpatine seeing a pos
-Original Message-
From: Nathan Torkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Seriously, we were surprised when another conference announced itself
>over top of our dates, so we're trying to work out how best to deal
with
>that (move, reposition, whatever). Never ever think conferences are
>easy.
I
Mark Fowler wrote:
> One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the U.K. To
> be honest, we have no idea what is good, what is bad, etc, and so I
> suggested asking you lot.
The London Open Source Convention will have Perl tutorials. If only I could
say precisely when it would
I know you said this:
Mark Fowler wrote:
> I'd like a course to make *sure* they do
but courses aside, books are still good. In particular, the Andrew L Johnson
book ("Elements of Programming with Perl", as rec'd by davorg) is really
handy when it comes to being:
> a) [...] hit over the head
At 16:56 21/03/2001, you wrote:
>Mark's ideas are excellent and I would be highly interested in a course
>like this.
Hmmm... maybe we _should_ look at public courses!
>Also to add to the list: security concerns for cgi scripts.
>And how about: a decent Perl debugger (that also happens to be fre
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:19:57PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
> One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the U.K. To
> be honest, we have no idea what is good, what is bad, etc, and so I
> suggested asking you lot.
NetThink will be running some courses soon. Don't want to adver
> > I'm interested if there are courses on offer. There's only
> > so much you can do with just yourself and a pile of O'Reilly books.
>
> The mind boggles ;)
No, not the *mind*! ;)
Oh, I forgot to mention the Prairie Squid (de-beaked, of course).
--
matt
"'scuse me trooper, will you be nee
> On 2001, 21, Mar, Wed, Cross, Dave wrote:
>
> > At Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:19:57 + (GMT), Mark Fowler wrote:
> > > One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the
> > > U.K.
> >
> > As far as I can see, none of the scheduled courses in the UK are
> > much cop.
> >
> > What
> > I'm interested if there are courses on offer. There's only so much
> > you can do with just yourself and a pile of O'Reilly books.
>
> I'd love to help, but we're not in a position to offer public courses
> yet - the cost of hiring rooms and PCs is too prohibitive.
Who said anything about d
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:31:06PM -, Matthew Jones wrote:
> > What do you need? If you can get three or four people interested in
> > doing the same course and can supply a suitable room, then Iterative
> > would be only too happy to help you out.
>
> I'm interested if there are courses on o
On 21 Mar 2001, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
> d) Debugging
Amen
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20 8980 5714 (Home)
http://colondot.net/ Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942 (Mobile)
perl -e 'print reverse split//,"\n.rekcah lreP rehtona tsuJ"'
pe
Mark's ideas are excellent and I would be highly interested in a course like
this.
Also to add to the list: security concerns for cgi scripts.
And how about: a decent Perl debugger (that also happens to be free).
I've yet to get a grasp on either.
What exactly is Iterative?
What are we looking
At Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:31:06 -, Matthew Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you need? If you can get three or four people interested in
> > doing the same course and can supply a suitable room, then Iterative
> > would be only too happy to help you out.
>
> I'm interested if there ar
Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is what I think they would need to learn:
>
> a) Get hit over the head a bit with my, local, strict, good programming
> practices. Maybe a quick refresher on how arrays, hashes and suchlike
> really work. (In terms of passing between subr
On 2001, 21, Mar, Wed, Cross, Dave wrote:
> At Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:19:57 + (GMT), Mark Fowler wrote:
> > One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the U.K.
>
> As far as I can see, none of the scheduled courses in the UK are much cop.
>
> What do you need? If you can get
> What do you need? If you can get three or four people interested in
> doing the same course and can supply a suitable room, then Iterative
> would be only too happy to help you out.
I'm interested if there are courses on offer. There's only so much you can
do with just yourself and a pile of O'
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Mark Fowler wrote:
> On 2001, 21, Mar, Wed Stevens, Michael wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:19:57PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > > One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the U.K.
> > Wasn't there some kerazy scheme to get london.pm doing courses?
>
At Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:19:57 + (GMT), Mark Fowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the U.K.
> To be honest, we have no idea what is good, what is bad, etc, and so I
> suggested asking you lot.
>
> We've been looking through a Learning
On 2001, 21, Mar, Wed Stevens, Michael wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:19:57PM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
> > One of my collegues asked me about Perl training courses in the U.K.
>
> Wasn't there some kerazy scheme to get london.pm doing courses?
Sorry. Perl training in *programming* not p
50 matches
Mail list logo
