i've made this entry form for the dungeons and dragons
game. it works as far as sending by email, but the
problem is that the stuff that you click on or type in
from the 3rd line of the form does not show up when
you click to send the results by email. please help me
in fixing this entry form to h
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:08:14PM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> Damian said:
> > The C block can't decide whether to execute until
> > it knows whether the loop is going to iterate again. And it can't
> > know *that* until it has evaluated the condition again. At which
> > point, the $filename
I now realize that my previous message was a little hard to read (plus I
sounded a bit harsh, which I did not mean to be, I was just excited,
thinking about this), because I insisted on being sort of stilted in my
pseudo-BNF. Here's a cleaner shot at what I meant:
flow:
co
Damian said:
> The C block can't decide whether to execute until
> it knows whether the loop is going to iterate again. And it can't
> know *that* until it has evaluated the condition again. At which
> point, the $filename variable has the wrong value. :-(
>
> The example is a little contrived per
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:53:24PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> Graham Barr:
> # On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:17:52PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> # > On 5/1/02 12:11 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> # >
> # > > It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like
> # it'll be in
Allison Randal:
# On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:04:10PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# >
# > *bites back sarcastic comment about the pace of Perl 6's
# development*
#
# *fails to squelch reply about the survival rate of prematurely birthed
# babies*
#
# Some things just take time.
I know, and I'm not
Graham Barr:
# On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:17:52PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
# > On 5/1/02 12:11 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
# >
# > > It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like
# it'll be in
# > > 5.10 when that comes out (in a year or two).
# >
# > I figured.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 01:04:10PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>
> *bites back sarcastic comment about the pace of Perl 6's development*
*fails to squelch reply about the survival rate of prematurely birthed
babies*
Some things just take time.
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 02:47:56PM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 12:22, Allison Randal wrote:
>
> > You also avoid totally annoying Pythonists who occasionally use (and
> > might be converted to) Perl. :)
>
> ...
>
> Perl is fundamentally different in its approach and jus
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:17:52PM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On 5/1/02 12:11 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
> > It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like it'll be in
> > 5.10 when that comes out (in a year or two).
>
> I figured. Too bad. ;-) A year or two is l
Mark J. Reed:
# On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:11:58PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
# > It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like
# it'll be in
# > 5.10 when that comes out (in a year or two).
# .. . . by which time 6.0 will have already been released, right?
#
# Right?
*bites back sarca
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:11:58PM -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
> It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like it'll be in
> 5.10 when that comes out (in a year or two).
.. . . by which time 6.0 will have already been released, right?
Right?
--
Mark J. REED<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 5/1/02 12:11 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> It's far too late to make it into 5.8, but it looks like it'll be in
> 5.10 when that comes out (in a year or two).
I figured. Too bad. ;-) A year or two is long time to wait!
Regards,
David
--
David Wheeler
David Wheeler:
# On 4/17/02 10:02 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
#
# > I'm working on a preliminary version right now. So far it's been
# > surprisingly easy--touches toke.c, perly.y, opcode.pl, pp.c, and
# > pp_hot.c. (Of course, it's also off an old bleadperl, but I doubt
# >
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 12:22, Allison Randal wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 09:03:42AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
[... in python ...]
> > while_stmt ::= "while" expression ":" suite
> > ["else" ":" suite]
> >
> > That's straight from http://www.python.org/doc/curre
On 4/17/02 10:02 PM, "Brent Dax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
> I'm working on a preliminary version right now. So far it's been
> surprisingly easy--touches toke.c, perly.y, opcode.pl, pp.c, and
> pp_hot.c. (Of course, it's also off an old bleadperl, but I doubt those
> files change that activ
On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 08:27, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> Damian said:
> > 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
>
>
> To me, "otherwise" is a synonym for "else", and that makes it too
> confusingly similar. I foresee forever explaining to people the difference
> between C and C. I'm
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 12:53:39PM -0400, Melvin Smith wrote:
> At 11:44 AM 5/1/2002 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
> >
> >Um... I know it's scary, but I can actually imagine using this (or
> >something like this) in development. I'll occasionally work on a section
> >of code I'm not ready to integr
At 11:44 AM 5/1/2002 -0500, Allison Randal wrote:
>On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:22:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> >
> > NAME
> > Acme::Don't - The opposite of `do'
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> ...
> >
> > Note that the code in the `don't' block must be syntactically valid
> > Perl. Th
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:22:29PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>
> NAME
> Acme::Don't - The opposite of `do'
>
> DESCRIPTION
...
>
> Note that the code in the `don't' block must be syntactically valid
> Perl. This is an important feature: you get the accelerated performance
>
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 09:03:42AM -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>
> Hmm. I wonder why the python community (apparently) have no problems
> with elses on loops:
>
> 7.2 The while statement
>
> The while statement is used for repeated execution as long as an
> expression
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:14:49PM +0100, Dave Mitchell wrote:
> In the true sprirt of perverseness, why not make loops into functions that
> return the number of iterations taken. Then you can have
>
> loop {
>
> }
> or die "loop not taken\n";
>
> ;-)
Right. This was my
In the true sprirt of perverseness, why not make loops into functions that
return the number of iterations taken. Then you can have
loop {
}
or die "loop not taken\n";
;-)
--
A walk of a thousand miles begins with a single step...
then continues for another 1,999,999
Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> > Damian said:
> > > 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
> >
> > To me, "otherwise" is a synonym for "else", and that makes it too
> > confusingly similar. I foresee forever explaining to people the differen
Jonathan said:
> I actually think exactly the opposite. In my mind "otherwise" would
> just be a synonym for "else" so that
>
> loop { ... } else { ... }
> loop { ... } otherwise { ... }
>
> would both be syntactically valid.
I believe that the intention is that they *aren't* synonyms, i.e. they
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:58:27PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
> 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
I agree, but I'll also toss out a few alternates anyway:
instead
inlieu
orelse loop { ... } orelse { ... } reads nicely to me :-)
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 08:27:41AM -0400, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
> Damian said:
> > 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
>
> To me, "otherwise" is a synonym for "else", and that makes it too
> confusingly similar. I foresee forever explaining to people the difference
> between C an
Damian posted:
> NAME
> Acme::Don't - The opposite of `do'
Wonderful job, Damian! I'll get to work on the complementary Acme::TryNotTo
module.
:-)
-Miko
Damian Conway wrote:
>Luke Palmer wrote:
>
>>Ooh! Why don't we have a dont command! With several variants:
>>dont FILE
>>dont BLOCK
>>
>>dont { print "Boo" }
>>
>>Would print:
>>
>>
>
>You really *should* be more careful what you wish for Luke.
>The following was just uploaded to
Damian said:
> 6. C would seem to fit the bill rather nicely.
To me, "otherwise" is a synonym for "else", and that makes it too
confusingly similar. I foresee forever explaining to people the difference
between C and C. I'm not sure if C is popular
because it is similar to C, but I think t
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2002, Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
>
>> > Damian, now having terrible visions of someone suggesting C ;-)
>>
>> Then may I also give you nightmares on: elsdo, elsdont, elsgrep, elstry ...
>
> Ooh! Why don't we have a dont command! With several
Luke Palmer wrote:
> I'd rather have an in-betweener block too. Loops like this are very
> common, and I hate doing "prefix" commas, if you know what I mean. I
> realize NEXT often used for cleanup, so maybe you could introduse Yet
> Another block, BETWEEN (or SQUEEZE).
>
> Or are we just going
ralph wrote:
> I'm basically sold on Damian's conclusions. On the other
> hand the 'otherwise' clause still feels to me like a CAPITALS
> block.
>
> So, as a tweak, I suggest:
>
> while condition() {
> ...
> }
> NONE {
> ...
> }
Would you also change C to
I'm basically sold on Damian's conclusions. On the other
hand the 'otherwise' clause still feels to me like a CAPITALS
block.
So, as a tweak, I suggest:
while condition() {
...
}
NONE {
...
}
--
ralph
34 matches
Mail list logo
