Bart Lateur wrote:
The problem is that
$name = "myarray";
@$name = (1,2,3);
print @$name[0,1]; # 1,2
Is very consistent currently. Change one and you have to change the
precedence and parsing of all symbolic refs.
You are suggesting to keep a weird precedence rule, just
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:29:22AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
$ok = try $scalar;
$ok = try @array
$ok = try %hash;
$ok = try sub;
I'd like to see a more specific name for these. 'try' is too useful a word
for core to gobble it up for everything (IMHO). attempt_lock? Or
Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm kind of curious to know what you think would happen with the
following. I've commented where I'm confident...
interface Number;
sub TIESCALAR;
sub STORE;
sub FETCH;
package integer implements Number; # I really
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to "Everything
becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual hurdles
exist which have discouraged more
2000-09-27-05:28:01 Piers Cawley:
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
At the suggestion of others I've opted to freeze rather than
withdraw.
How might I persuade you to reconsider?
I was kind of hoping that
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:25:28AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Not an awful lot was said once this RFC was condensed down to
"Everything
becomes an object". I believe some implementation and conceptual
hurdles
exist which have discouraged more serious discussion. At the
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:53:03AM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
Ok, no fair sniping after a freeze. You were warned. It's called email,
people! Use it. Jeez...
Never too late to withdraw, sir. [1] The less crap we make Larry wade through,
the better.
[1] Well, up until the pregnancy, I guess.
2000-09-27-15:08:10 Simon Cozens:
Never too late to withdraw, sir. [1] The less crap we make Larry
wade through, the better.
Regarding the specific issue at hand, could you please offer
something more specific than "you'd like it withdrawn"? Is there a
reason why it's impossible to implement
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:43:45PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
As list chair, I ask either:
1. The people discussing this clarify themselves
2. The people discussing this please drop it
Ho hum. You've heard, I believe, my arguments now. I'm happy to drop the
matter, since it seems a
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:16:36PM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
I open to hearing your reasons. The biggest reason it wasn't withdrawn
is
because someone said "hey don't do that, here's why". So give me a "why"
already...
It doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel Perlish.
That's it?
HI Tom,
Welcome to England (I presume)
This seems very complicated. Did you look at the Ram:6 recipe on
expressing AND, OR, and NOT in a regex? For example, to do
/FOO/ /BAR/ you need not write /FOO.*BAR|BAR.*FOO/ -- and in
fact, should not, as it doesn't work properly on some pairs!
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
there any reason not to standardize these down to one notation (i.e.,
eliminate
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:15:53AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of the regex. Is
there any
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
If $1 could be made to work properly on the LHS of s///, I'd vote for
that being The Way.
That was pretty much my thought?
"DS" == Dave Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DS Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens
DS in a regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation
DS is that \1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside
DS of the regex. Is there any
"Jonathan" == Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jonathan On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:15:53AM -0700, Dave Storrs wrote:
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that \1
is used within
On 27 Sep 2000, Piers Cawley wrote:
Do we *want* to maintain \1? Why have two notations to do the
I'm kind of curious about what happens when you want to do, say:
if (m/(\S+)/) {
$reg = qr{(em|i|b)($1)/\1};
}
where the $1 in the regex quote is refering to $1 from the
On Wed 27 Sep, Dave Storrs wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Richard Proctor wrote:
Both \1 and $1 refer to what is matched by the first set of parens in a
regex. AFAIK, the only difference between these two notation is that
\1 is used within the regex itself and $1 is used outside of
==
I lie: the other reason qr{} currently doesn't behave like that is
that
when we interpolate a compiled regexp into a context that requires
it be
recompiled,
Interpolated qr() items shouldn't be recompiled anyway. They
I know it's unfair to comment on a frozen RFC, but I think it's
important to note a few things:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:22:30AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Maintainer: J. David Blackstone [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Status: Frozen
[snip]
Dubbed the "conservative" approach by Mark-Jason
The AUTOGLOB subroutine should expect to take two parameters, the invocant,
and a second parameter specifying what type of item is being AUTOGLOBbed,
followed by - in the case of a sub - the sub's arguments. We suggest that
the second parameter should be a scalar value - 'scalar' for an
Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll revise the RFC to add 'readable()', 'writable()', and such
synonyms for -r and -w that are more like 'use english' and less like
'use English'.
i have a minor problem with the
On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
Can you say "method"?
--
Bart.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:50:28AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
Can you say "method"?
Doesn't work on
"PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PRL -r freadable()
PRL -w fwriteable()
PRL -x fexecable()
PRL -o fowned()
PRL -R Freadable()
PRL -W Fwriteable()
PRL -X Fexecable()
PRL -O Fowned()
PRL -e fexists()
PRL
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:48:33AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
"PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PRL -r freadable()
PRL -w fwriteable()
PRL -x fexecable()
PRL -o fowned()
PRL -R Freadable()
PRL -W Fwriteable()
PRL -X
"AT" == Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AT I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be
AT exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm
AT on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable()
AT looks better. It is tom's original
* Perl6 RFC Librarian ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 18:36]: []
[...]
When this pragma is loaded, it should replace the print coderef with a
function that will print out all headers in the @HEADERS queue, print
out the desired output, and restore the print coderef.
It should also
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so fewer "cluttering"
parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
indentation to define block structure.
What
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
Philip Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
so fewer "cluttering"
parentheses are needed to make things readable while still being correct.
Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
Each parenthesis is one "token". The more tokens you need
Robert Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Cozens wrote:
(defun Schwartzian (func list)
(mapcar
(lambda (x) (car x))
(sort
(mapcar
(lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
list
)
(lambda (x y) ( (cdr x) (cdr y)))
)
)
)
Maybe
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 19:54]:
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
[...]
By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
indentation to define block structure.
What an idea! I wonder why no language has tried this before.
I realise you're being
This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
about it,
either. Mark my words.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the
./sun4-solaris/POSIX.pm:sub isatty {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scope {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_state {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_miniwhile { # check for one-line loop
(`foo() while $y--')
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub is_scalar {
./sun4-solaris/B/Deparse.pm:sub
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
what's going on.
I'd go further
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
The concept of Cnull as opposed to Cundef is sometimes difficult for
people to understand.
"People" in this context being the people who are reading perl6-language and
purporting to be able to know what Perl 6 needs. People
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
The most important optimization a programmer can make is to optimize
for understanding.
--
Piers
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:17 AM, Tom Christiansen
[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
about it,
either. Mark my words.
Quote from Larry: "I have a
[Quoting Dave Storrs, on September 26 2000, 11:47, in "Re: RFC 292 (v1) Ext"]
I'm confused...are you suggesting that the debugger should no
longer be integrated into perl?
Absolutely not!
What I wanted to indicate is that the input and output handling of the
debugger, currently line
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
John Porter wrote:
Yeah, not to mention the fact that many modules, notably CGI.pm,
are arranged to allow to use unquoted strings of the form -name:
print textfield( -name = 'description' );
Well, this one's not an issue, because =
* Philip Newton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [27 Sep 2000 22:51]:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, iain truskett wrote:
Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
instead that does such auto-formatting?
In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered,
and if
You suggested:
file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
That's really insane. The goal was to produce code that's legible.
That is hardly better. It's much worse than is_writable or writable
or whatnot. Just use -w if that's what you want.
--tom
Visit our website at
grep -l Class::Struct */*.pm
Class/Struct.pm
File/stat.pm
Net/hostent.pm
Net/netent.pm
Net/protoent.pm
Net/servent.pm
Time/gmtime.pm
Time/localtime.pm
Time/tm.pm
User/grent.pm
User/pwent.pm
Please check those out for precedent and practice.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This
You suggested:
file($file, 'w'); # is it writeable?
Not that I'm advocating it but you do something like:
test($file, WRITEABLE);
test($file, WRITEABLE READABLE);
...
where constants are defined for various "attributes" to be tested for...
Currently 23, or 3 bytes... (not that
One doesn't remove useful and intuitive syntax
just because Mr Bill never put it into MS-BASIC!
I merely passingly suggested that there be a
use English style alias for these. They are, however,
wholly natural to millions of people, and should not
be harrassed. (NB: 10 million Linux weenies
The -wd syntax (writeable directory) is nicer than file($file, "wd").
But anyway, there's hardly anything wrong with -w -d. Don't
understand
the complaint.
One thing I would really like to see is better security support. Look
at the Camel-III's security chapter, File::Temp, and the is_safe
Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
need to ruin the cuteness.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate,
Goodness, no, don't call it "PRAYER". The blessing
is one of corporate approval, not ecclesiastical deprecationem.
Please don't piss people off.
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If
David Grove wrote:
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:17 AM, Tom Christiansen wrote:
This is screaming mad. I will become perl6's greatest detractor and
anti-campaigner if this nullcrap happens. And I will never shut up
about it,
either. Mark my words.
Quote from Larry: "I have
On Wednesday, September 27, 2000 10:21 AM, John Porter [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
wrote:
Philip Newton wrote:
On 26 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
By the same reasoning, you can reduce the use of curlies by using
indentation to define block structure.
What an idea! I wonder why no
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
need to ruin the cuteness.
"use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you
Adam Turoff wrote:
PRL -r freadable()
PRL -w fwriteable()
PRL -x fexecable()
PRL -o fowned()
PRL -R Freadable()
PRL -W Fwriteable()
PRL -X Fexecable()
PRL -O Fowned()
this looks decent to me.
I reserve the right to
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 07:36:42AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
Tainting should be able to be turned off, as Tom recommends,
but only if the user turns on the "absolutely, positively,
do NOT turn on taint mode" switch.
I can see it now -- Cno taint 'really';. Really, I don't see why we
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Johan Vromans wrote:
What I wanted to indicate is that the input and output handling of the
debugger, currently line input and line output, should not be turned
into a sophisticated user interface with command line recall/editing
and fancy output paging (e.g. two
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
need to ruin the cuteness.
"use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
Cuse fewer
Rename the Clocal operator
A list of other proposed replacement names includes (but is not
limited to, since I certainly have forgotten some):
Cnow
Unfortunately, I wish this RFC would have taken a stand on at least a
first choice. :-( I always thought that "now" was by far the most
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
Really, I don't see why we can't
just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
Z.
Philip Newton wrote:
Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have %HEADERS
instead that does such auto-formatting?
In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are unordered, and
if you want to order the keys, you need to know the possibly keys and in
which
Piers Cawley wrote:
Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
We obviously need to introduce a synonymous
Cuse fewer 'rolled_loops' for when we want to be grammatically
correct. Or am I just being silly now?
Or have perl enforce the correct
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:45:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
But on a tangential note: has anyone proposed letting
functions, perhaps by prototype, allow the autoquoting
of arguments?
I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
use fewer sewers;
would be fine, and I'd like
Simon Cozens wrote:
I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
Yep. If you don't stop, pretty soon you have sh. :-P
l((apply foo (mapcar bar (@wibble
pragma time:
use literal qw( apply mapcar http://www.perl.org/ );
use LWP::Simple;
getprint
Piers Cawley wrote:
You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
what's going on.
Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, because
Simon Cozens wrote:
Readability is a programmer feature, not a language feature.
Right. Parens, and other devices for "readability", are there
for the user to use, if she chooses. Perl is not about forcing
a certain style.
--
John Porter
Aus des Weltalls ferne funken Radiosterne.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:35:39PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, because it
has no precedence rules. (Well, hardly any). It has (almost)
no other syntax. This is the situation we would like to avoid
in perl. By letting every operator have
At 10:26 AM 9/27/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
The concept of Cnull as opposed to Cundef is sometimes difficult for
people to understand.
"People" in this context being the people who are reading perl6-language and
At 02:20 PM 9/27/00 -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:09:20PM -0400, James Mastros wrote:
Really, I don't see why we can't
just have a 'use taint' and 'no taint' pargma.
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
'no taint'
Sounds good. I'll start on my 39th :-{ RFC right now... ;-)
-Nate
Adam Turoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 11:33:13AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Ziggy, are you interested in this idea enough (at all?) to stick a note
about the 'header' function into the RFC? Or should I RFC it
Simon Cozens wrote:
Perl is English-like. And sometimes in English parentheses *are* necessary to
increase both meaning and readability, as your own message proves.
That's rather disingenuous, since perl does not use parens for
the same purpose English does. Parens are necessary in a
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
'no taint' does make sense, though 'use taint' might not except to locally
undo 'no taint'.
Actually, from my talks with Larry both on and off-list about this, he
convinced me
At 03:35 PM 9/27/00 -0400, John Porter wrote:
Piers Cawley wrote:
You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
what's going on.
Yes, but
At 12:52 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
Because taint mode needs to be turned on REEELY early, like before
pragmas are compiled.
'no taint' does make sense, though 'use taint' might not except to locally
undo 'no taint'.
Actually, from my talks with Larry
Webmaster wrote:
What would really be nice here is an Cindex function, similar to the
scalar version, that returns the index of the matching entry in a list. For
instance:
my $n=0;
foreach (@items){
print "Found It at position $n!\n" if /$seek/;
$n++;
}
Could be replaced by:
Parse the CGI GET/POST request, returning CGI variables into %CGI
(regardless of the source) in an un-HTTP escaped fashion
How are you going to handle multiple values for the same parameter?
With CGI.pm, you can say
@values = $q-param("foo");
Are you going to make the values of %CGI
Robert Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
How many people really "use English" other than beginners?
I would use it, but I heard a nasty rumor that it incurs the same
penalty as using $' and such. I try to avoid too much line noise in
code that has to be maintained.
I
Russ Allbery wrote:
I have a very serious problem with use English, namely that it makes Perl
code much more difficult to read and maintain for people who know Perl
... and don't know use English. Why can't they learn to use it? Are
you saying that nothing is worth knowing unless the
Russ Allbery wrote:
I have a very serious problem with use English, namely that it makes Perl
code much more difficult to read and maintain for people who know Perl.
Writing something that's marginally easier to understand for a beginner
and harder to understand for an expert doesn't strike
Robert Mathews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... and don't know use English. Why can't they learn to use it?
Why can't the new users of Perl learn the real variable names?
I guess I don't buy the argument that the real names are harder to learn.
Most of them have fairly useful mnemonics, you see
From: "Dan Sugalski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Nathan Wiger" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM
'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the
rules for that should stay in effect. What they should alter instead is
perl's response to tainted
* Nathan Wiger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [28 Sep 2000 05:33]:
Philip Newton wrote:
Is order important for @HEADERS? Would it be better to have
%HEADERS instead that does such auto-formatting?
In my opinion, no, for the reasons given before. Hashes are
unordered, and if you want to order
Russ Allbery wrote:
I've found the use of use English in code I had to maintain to be annoying
and unhelpful, and to actually degrade the maintainability of the code
[snip]
I've yet to understand why I'd *want* to use English regularly; so far as
I can tell, it has essentially no benefit in
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
guts to write
Adam Turoff wrote:
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 04:39:32PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if
My personal feeling is that I'd love "use English" to be expunged from
the language altogether - it's unnecessary bloat that only increases the
number of mistakes that people can make. But I'm not sure if I have the
guts to write that RFC just yet. ;-)
Are you talking about the
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 05:11:30PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Yes, but perhaps a little bit of both. Truthfully, I've always seen long
alternatives as useless bloat, not used widely over the long term. Once
people learn the shortcuts, they use them.
Expunging "use English" may will improve
The story so far:
On September 13 Jarkko professed a desire for
"a quotish context that would be otherwise like q() but with some minimal extra
typing
I could mark a scalar or an array to be expanded as in qq()." [1]
Seeing this as being especially useful for those of us creating
At 07:09 PM 9/27/00 -0400, James Mastros wrote:
From: "Dan Sugalski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Nathan Wiger" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:08 PM
'no taint' and 'use taint' shouldn't affect whether data is tainted--the
rules for that should stay in effect. What they
Adam Turoff wrote:
It has nothing to do with improving the syntax though, because everything
in use English is a variable that serves as a reference to some other
variable.
Yes, and that's why I really think it's a waste of time. ;-)
I'm not vehemently opposed to "use English"... But I
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
calculation was in a 'no taint' block.
Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed
through a "no taint" block doesn't make it any more trustworthy. Tainting
really
At 07:53 PM 9/27/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
It might be nice if the result of a calculation was never tainted when the
calculation was in a 'no taint' block.
Yerk. No, that's bad. The data is still tainted--the fact that it flowed
through a "no taint" block
Robert Mathews wrote:
Parse the CGI GET/POST request, returning CGI variables into %CGI
(regardless of the source) in an un-HTTP escaped fashion
How are you going to handle multiple values for the same parameter?
With CGI.pm, you can say
@values = $q-param("foo");
Are you going to
On 27 Sep 2000 07:36:42 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
First-Class CGI Support
Freezing within two days doesn't leave much space for comments and or
objections does it?
I'm not
91 matches
Mail list logo
