On 09 Nov 2010 06:02:55 GMT you wrote:
>> For now, I'm sending the complete revision in toto.
> Applied as cf21866, with some tpyo corretcions.
Thanks very muhc. I think it's a better document now,
even if only marginally.
===
TYPOS
===
Even though my last step was to spell-check it,
> Personally I really wish you had kept the changes to use lexically
> scoped filehandles.
That's fine. I'm certainly not *against* lexically scoped indirect
filehandles--except for all the extra syllababbles of English it takes
to *mention* them:(--provided it doesn't complicate things or intro
Abigail wrote:
> Before 5.6, lexical scoped file handles were possible, but everyone
> used globs, and the world didn't stop turning. Collision was so
> infrequent, noone wanted to type the few extra keystrokes.
Plus the ALL_CAPPED names really stood out, further decreasing
the chance of collisi
In article <21672.1289313...@chthon>, Tom Christiansen
wrote:
> That last one snuck past me because I always quickly avert my eyes from
> such self-mentions. I'm *terribly* queasy about the least hint of what
> could be perceived as pecunious self-promotion.
If you weren't prolific, it would b
> Ultimately it's your call, but I think the Cookbook references should
> be in there.
Thanks, Brian.
I still feel that I must recuse myself from making that call.
--tom
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 07:44:41AM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>
> Even though my last step was to spell-check it, a few typos still
> made it through. Here are four that I'm aware of:
>
> 1. Be careful qx(), system(), and some modules for calling external commands
> ^
>
On 9 November 2010 15:44, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> On 09 Nov 2010 06:02:55 GMT you wrote:
>
>>> For now, I'm sending the complete revision in toto.
>
>> Applied as cf21866, with some tpyo corretcions.
>
> Thanks very muhc. I think it's a better document now,
> even if only marginally.
>
> ==
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:53:35PM +0100, Abigail wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 04:46:31PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> >
> > My comment was inspired by the belief that the docs should not
> > encourage people to use global variables when there are lexically
> > scoped equivalents availble as a rep
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:20:51AM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > Ultimately it's your call, but I think the Cookbook references should
> > be in there.
>
> Thanks, Brian.
>
> I still feel that I must recuse myself from making that call.
I'm 100% ok with it. I would be really sad if the
On 9 November 2010 19:24, Jesse Vincent wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:20:51AM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>> > Ultimately it's your call, but I think the Cookbook references should
>> > be in there.
>>
>> Thanks, Brian.
>>
>> I still feel that I must recuse myself from making that c
In article <22527.1289230...@chthon>, Tom Christiansen
wrote:
> What the heck is this:
>
> Section 5 of the F file is devoted to "Networking, Device Control
> (modems), and Interprocess Communication", and contains numerous unbundled
> modules numerous networking modules, Chat and E
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 07:27:37PM +0100, demerphq wrote:
> On 9 November 2010 19:24, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 11:20:51AM -0700, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >> > Ultimately it's your call, but I think the Cookbook references should
> >> > be in there.
> >>
> >> Th
Salutations, and apologies for the giant reply-all.
Paul Johnson wrote:
> No. But it might be if autodie could be persuaded to work on an implicit
> close when a lexical filehandle goes out of scope. That is, if these two
> snippets functioned identically:
>
> $ perl5.12.2 -Mautodie -E 'open
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> I nearly always use lexical handles in non-trivial programs, although in
> trust I seldom do so in trivial ones. By trivial, I mean those that don't
> even have subroutines, or very few.
I'm pretty sure everyone on this list is able to ma
> I agree with you in theory, but in practice I think it doesn't matter
> most of the time: most of the time people don't check the return
> values of their print() calls, making the point of checking close() a
> bit moot IMHO.
It is neither necessary nor sufficient to check the return value
fro
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> It is neither necessary nor sufficient to check the return value
> from print to detect an error in print.
I agree it's not sufficient, but I don't agree it's not necessary.
Just imagine a program waiting for a reply to a question that ne
>On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>> It is neither necessary nor sufficient to check the return value
>> from print to detect an error in print.
>I agree it's not sufficient, but I don't agree it's not necessary.
>Just imagine a program waiting for a reply to a question th
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:55:52AM +0100, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> > I nearly always use lexical handles in non-trivial programs, although in
> > trust I seldom do so in trivial ones. By trivial, I mean those that don't
> > even have subro
18 matches
Mail list logo
