On Fri 11 May 2001 16:31, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 01:55:42AM +0100, Graham Barr wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 07:40:04PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
By far most of my use of typeglobs is making aliases, and then mostly
for code:
On Wed, 2 May 2001 08:05:29 -0700 (PDT), Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael G Schwern writes:
: (grep {...} @stuff)[0] will work, but its inelegant.
It's inelegant only because the slice doesn't know how to tell the
iterator it only needs one value. If it did know, you'd call it
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:19:24 +0100, Graham Barr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$a = $b ~ $c; # Mmm!
I like that last one a lot, because it doesn't disturb anything.
You'd have to alter ~'s precedence so that binary ~ is higher
than named unary operators. (It's print($a~$b), not print $a
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:22:54 +0100, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
One interesting suggestion was to have it as a shorthand for assertion:
sub foo {
(@_ 0)!;
...
}
(Or even have ! be
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:02:50 +0100, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:49:36PM +0200, Dav?? Helgason wrote:
This wouldn't mean that anyone is thinking of getting us object
dot-syntax, now would it?
whistle
After giving it a thought, it seems that it can
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:57:50 +0200, Davíð Helgason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:22:54 +0100, Simon Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If postfix ! was up for grabs - which it probably isn't - what would
you do with it?
One interesting
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:29:41 PDT, Jeff Okamoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
encountered in the open software arena.
Ditto for HP.
Which is more extreme (HP9000/L1000, HP-UX 11.00 + March 2001 patches):
%
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:53:49 +0200, Otto Wyss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Make readability your main objective. Readability is possibly the
weakest part of Perl.
- Keep your eyes on modularity. Modularity is by far the best concept
where complexity could be hidden.
- Don't
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 23:34:41 +0100, Otto Wyss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A study in Science (291 P.2165) found out that english speaking children
has twice as much reading problems as italian speaking children of the
same age. And about similar difference towards german and french. This
could
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
On 20 Sep 2000 04:12:09 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
=head1 TITLE
Add null() keyword and fundamental data type
=head1 MIGRATION
None. New functionality.
Not true. Apart from the discussion if undef is the same as null, in which I
take no stance, Migration *is* an
I don't like OOP, you folks obviously do. Maybe docs/specs/... are interesting
for you ...
Have fun.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups: fm.announce
Subject: Ruby 1.6.0 - An object-oriented language for quick and easy programming
Date: 19 Sep 2000 09:58:15 GMT
application: Ruby 1.6.0
On 19 Sep 2000 09:23:00 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm planning to withdraw RFC184 ("Perl should support an interactive
mode"), due to lack of interest. There was little discussion of it,
and the consensus seemed to be that Cperl -de0 is "good enough" for
most
On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 12:41:04 -0700, Glenn Linderman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) do perl6 formats need to have exactly the same scoping rules as perl5
formats in this regard?
perl5 formats do NOT support lexicals, so this is not a very interesting
question. (Re-)implementation of formats in
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 08:43:05 -0600, Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not think you two are arguing about the same thing.
Certainly as Bart has shown, formats *can* see lexicals. Your
illustration does not disprove that. It simply shows that lexical
scoping is static scoping,
On 13 Sep 2000 07:18:15 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
POD should tolerate white space.
I don't want any newlines needed at all, though I think I stand somewhat alone
here.
I
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:19:38 -0400, John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
On 13 Sep 2000 07:18:15 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
POD should
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 10:58:51 -0400, John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
Are we being clever again?
Rephrase: "No empty lines".
I know you understood, but ... (no, I won't say it)
Frankly, I thought it was absurd when I first wrote it...
but then I looked at
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:44:10 +0200, "H.Merijn Brand" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having no time to write and/or maintain RFC's, I'll toss this up in the air
and see what happens.
[ snip ]
my $Ycmp = sub { $a cmp $b };
@a = sort $Ycmp @x;
but this is an unsupported syntax for
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:41:41 -0600, Tom Christiansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've actually even used this at run-time, such as:
$value = {
azure = 0xF0,
chartreuse = 0x7FFF00,
lavender= 0xE6E6FA,
magenta = 0xFF00FF,
turquoise =
Having no time to write and/or maintain RFC's, I'll toss this up in the air
and see what happens.
Abigail has posted sorting benchmarks for 5.6.0 to 5.7.0 on clp.misc, and I've
extended that being curious to performance loss for anonymous blocks and named
subroutines
sub Xcmp { $a cmp
On 4 Sep 2000 21:32:00 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1TITLE
Here Docs Terminators (Was Whitespace and Here Docs)
[...]
=head1 IMPLENTATION
Intentional? It's either
On Wed, 2 Aug 2000 12:29:41 -0400, John Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
H.Merijn Brand wrote:
If I could, I would VETO!
If I could, I would mandate this change. This is definitely in my
Top 10 List of Perl 5 Suckinesses.
So here we differ. That's what discussions are for.
This
23 matches
Mail list logo
