On 2002.01.13 22:25 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Why would this:
>
> BEGIN {
> push @INC, 'foo';
> }
>
> put 'foo' into @INC twice if it were compiled? The compiled program
> should not be storing the post-BEGIN value of @INC, it should store
> the original value at startup.
The
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:04:58PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
>> > $ bleadperl -MO=-qq,Deparse foo.plx
>> > sub BEGIN {
>> > print "foo\n";
>> > }
>> > print "bar\n";
>> >
>> > If B::Deparse can save BEGIN blocks, B::C can.
>>
>> I didn't mean
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:04:58PM +0100, Mattia Barbon wrote:
> > > $ bleadperl -MO=-qq,Deparse foo.plx
> > > sub BEGIN {
> > > print "foo\n";
> > > }
> > > print "bar\n";
> > >
> > > If B::Deparse can save BEGIN blocks, B::C can.
> >
> > I didn't mean that I can't write code to make B::C
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:13:27AM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> On 2002.01.13 22:25 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Why would this:
> >
> > BEGIN {
> > push @INC, 'foo';
> > }
> >
> > put 'foo' into @INC twice if it were compiled? The compiled program
> > should not be stor
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:23:46AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Um... You're wrong. If you do need 'startup time' initialization then
>> you should do it in an INIT block. If I may quote from the
>> documentation:
>
> Like it or not, people put lot
On 2002.01.14 17:29 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:13:27AM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > On 2002.01.13 22:25 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > > Why would this:
> > >
> > > BEGIN {
> > > push @INC, 'foo';
> > > }
> > >
> > > put 'foo' into @INC twice if
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:16:49PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Like I said, if B::Deparse can do it, B::C can.
>
> But it shouldn't. How do you distinguish between:
>
>use Foo;
>
> (needs to use 'Foo' before generating the compiled script, otherwise
> what's the bloody point?)
>
> and
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:16:49PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:23:46AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >> Um... You're wrong. If you do need 'startup time' initialization then
> >> you should do it in an INIT block. If I
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> > # ~/tmp/Bar.pm
> > package Bar;
> >
> > print "\@INC as Bar sees it\n";
> > print join "\n", @INC;
>
> Nah. You should wrap this code in a CHECK block : otherwise, in
> your example, it will be run at BEGIN-time (i.e. when
On 2002.01.14 22:27 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> B::Deparse has slowly gotten very good at figuring out BEGIN blocks
> from 'use' statements and putting them in the right places. Hard
> fought knowledge. Steal from it.
There are still problems with pragmas. (As I was working on B::Deparse
the las
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:16:49PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:23:46AM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >> Um... You're wrong. If you do need 'startup time' initializat
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:20:43PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
> On 2002.01.14 22:27 Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > B::Deparse has slowly gotten very good at figuring out BEGIN blocks
> > from 'use' statements and putting them in the right places. Hard
> > fought knowledge. Steal from it.
>
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:38:36PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >> Deferring BEGIN blocks 'til runtime will break rather more realworld
> >> program than it fixes I think.
> >
> > Where is deferring involved?
>
> Err... it goes like this:
>
> by the main program>
>
>
>
>
>
> The compiled f
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:11:57PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:38:36PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:16:49PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > >> Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 10:38:36PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
>> >> Deferring BEGIN blocks 'til runtime will break rather more realworld
>> >> program than it fixes I think.
>> >
>> > Where is deferring involved?
>>
>> Err... it goes like this:
>>
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there's Perl->C translation issue as to why that's not possible,
> ok. But I know from a B standpoint all the information is there to
> handle BEGIN blocks.
No, it isn't.
--
Piers
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:43:24PM +, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > What's left?
>
> What about begin blocks with side effects. How do you propose
> detecting the side effects. How do you deal with things that may
> dispatch to different subroutines depending on when they are
> evaluated? How do yo
17 matches
Mail list logo
