On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 04:43:32PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
>=head1 TITLE
>
>Proposal to utilize C<*> as the prefix to magic subroutines
>
>=head1 VERSION
>
> Maintainer: Jonthan Scott Duff
> Date: 7 Aug 2000
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:28 AM 8/8/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> >Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > > >On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I meant that BEGIN, END, and INI
At 09:28 AM 8/8/00 +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
>Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > >On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > >I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
> > > >named b
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > But what happens if you want multiple BEGIN blocks?
>
> The same thing that happens now. As I understand it, perl compiles
> and executes the BEGIN block then detroys it so that you may have as
> many BEGIN blocks as you want and each time perl thinks it's the firs
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:27:24AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > Proposal to utilize C<*> as the prefix to magic subroutines
>
> I freely accept that this is not anything approaching a reasoned
> critique but:
>
> Yecch!
That comment is as good as any :-)
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAI
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 09:28:17AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
> Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> > >On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > >
> > > >I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 13:03:16 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>If you mean that you MUST use "sub", I object. If you mean that the
>"sub" may not be used, I agree.
Addendum. I would propose that
BEGIN {
...
}
would be what it is now, and that
sub BEGIN {
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 15:19:00 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>>Check the docs again. [snip]
>> Four special subroutines act as package constructors and
>> destructors. These are the `BEGIN', `CHECK', `INIT', and `END'
>> routines. The `sub' is optional for these routines.
>
>Drat. I propos
Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> >On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >
> > >I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
> > >named blocks. I was surprised to discover that they're put in th
Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This and other RFCs are available on the web at
> http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
>
> =head1 TITLE
>
> Proposal to utilize C<*> as the prefix to magic subroutines
I freely accept that this is not anything approaching a reasoned
critique but:
Yecch!
From: Peter Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>>Check the docs again. [snip]
>> Four special subroutines act as package constructors and
>> destructors. These are the `BEGIN', `CHECK', `IN
At 12:07 AM 8/8/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>
> >I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
> >named blocks. I was surprised to discover that they're put in the symbol
> >table anyway though.
>
>Check the docs
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:56:40 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
>named blocks. I was surprised to discover that they're put in the symbol
>table anyway though.
Check the docs again. Although not the habit, it IS allowed to use:
At 12:55 PM 8/7/00 -0500, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 10:04:15AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > At 04:43 PM 8/7/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > > sub *BEGIN { ... }
> > > sub *END{ ... }
> > > sub *INIT { ... }
> > >
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 10:56:40AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> I meant that BEGIN, END, and INIT aren't declared as subs at present but
> named blocks. I was surprised to discover that they're put in the symbol
> table anyway though. But they're definitely in a different class,
> syntacticall
On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 10:04:15AM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 04:43 PM 8/7/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> > sub *BEGIN { ... }
> > sub *END{ ... }
> > sub *INIT { ... }
> > sub *AUTOLOAD { ... }
> > sub *TIESCALAR { ... }
>
At 10:29 AM 8/7/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > With the proliferation of special subroutine names (BEGIN, END, INIT,
> > CHECK, etc.) the all capital subroutine names available to the
> > programmer has steadily shrunk. Rather than stealing subroutines from
> > the programmer, we should create
> If you're going to use a convention, rather than a syntax, then the current
> convention of all CAPS reserved to Perl is easier to understand, more
> pleasing to the eye, and backwards compatible.
Good point. Maybe we're getting a little "fix-happy". :-)
-Nate
> With the proliferation of special subroutine names (BEGIN, END, INIT,
> CHECK, etc.) the all capital subroutine names available to the
> programmer has steadily shrunk. Rather than stealing subroutines from
> the programmer, we should create a space just for Perl.
>
> sub *BEGIN {
>
At 04:43 PM 8/7/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> sub *BEGIN { ... }
> sub *END{ ... }
> sub *INIT { ... }
> sub *AUTOLOAD { ... }
> sub *TIESCALAR { ... }
> sub *FETCH { ... }
Only half of those are subs.
--
Peter S
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Proposal to utilize C<*> as the prefix to magic subroutines
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Jonthan Scott Duff
Date: 7 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 59
=head1 ABSTRACT
P
21 matches
Mail list logo
