Re: backticks

2004-04-17 Thread Matthew Walton
Juerd wrote:

Sean O'Rourke skribis 2004-04-15  8:55 (-0700):

I find that there are still plenty of contexts in which `` is nice and
security is irrelevant.
This is the second time in this thread that I read about security being
unimportant. I still don't know what to say about it, though I feel like
ranting.
Security is of course extremely important, but changing a language so 
that doing anything insecure becomes impossible or at least extremely 
difficult strikes me as a bit too much nannying. One should of course 
never accept user input without validating it first - especially stuff 
coming in over a network - but once you know what's in it, there's nowt 
wrong with interpolating that into a `` or qx// kind of structure.

Well, other than the usual mistakes you can make by forgetting how it's 
going to interact with the shell, but this really doesn't bother me in 
the slightest. And as has been said, there's a vast amount of one-liners 
and short utility scripts out there which use backticks quite happily 
and safely. As with many things, they're only dangerous if you don't 
know what you're doing.

Probably you know when you can use qx safely, but many, MANY people out
there have no clue whatsoever and use qx with interpolation *because* it
is easy.
Which is exactly why I use it. I'm just not foolish enough to trust the 
variables I'm interpolating into it unless I've constructed them 
entirely myself and I know the code that constructs them is bug-free.

Having said all that about lack of knowledge though, I'm sure everyone 
on this list knows about how to deal with tainted data and such things, 
but there are a lot of fresh Computer Science graduates and other people 
learning programming who never hear a thing about it. I don't see that 
as an excuse to turn Perl into a hand-holding nanny language though.


Re: backticks

2004-04-17 Thread Juerd
John Williams skribis 2004-04-16 18:32 (-0600):
 You didn't answer his question, which is less complicated?

Wasn't that a rhetociral question?


Juerd


How to read and write files?

2004-04-17 Thread Andrew Shitov
I think I have somesing missed: is it possible to open (that is read and 
write) files in perl6 programmes? Those programmes that can be run under
current parrot release.

Thanks.



RE: Apocalypse 12

2004-04-17 Thread Austin Hastings
 From: chromatic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Perl.com has just made A12 available:

   http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html

 Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.

 Enjoy,
 -- c

This week I've celebrated my birthday, had my jaw unwired, uncovered five
job prospects, and finally got A12.

When I do this year in review, this week will be hard to beat.

Woo-hoo!

=Austin



Re: backticks

2004-04-17 Thread Trey Harris
In a message dated Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Juerd writes:
 Except for the shocking number of closed-minded people on this list.

Stop it, stop it, STOP IT.

I'm not asking you to stop voicing your opinion about the discussion at
hand--that would be closed-minded, after all.

I'm asking you to stop interpreting disagreement as censorship, prejudice,
closed-mindedness, or whatever else.  It's not.

In any case, the argument in re 'what operator to access
keywordishly-keyed hashes' is spinning out of control and not getting
anywhere.  This is precisely why we leave it to Larry (and @Larry) to
exercise his benevolent dictatorship.

Open issues in regards to what to do with qx() (I'll post my thoughts on
that a bit later) and discussion thereof, or on a truly new syntax (other
than the ones proposed by Larry and Juerd or a return to Perl 5 ambiguity)
or some other brilliant unification in regards to hash keys would I think
still be welcomed here.

But the argument back and forth--which is prettier, which takes more
keystrokes, what's a keystroke, isn't it too much like
some-other-language-we-don't-like, no it's more like
yet-another-language-we-do-like, etc. ad nauseam is just petty bickering
at this point.

Can we all just take a deep breath here and let the issue be resolved as
time fulfills?  No progress is being made at this point.  Let it rest.

(No, Juerd, I'm not being closed-minded or censoring you.  This equally
applies to everyone who just wants to restate some new wrinkle of a point
already discussed to death.)

Trey
--
Trey Harris
Vice President
SAGE -- The System Administrators Guild (www.sage.org)
Opinions above are not necessarily those of SAGE.


Re: backticks

2004-04-17 Thread David Storrs
Folks, this discussion seems to be spinning.  All the points, on both
sides, have been made and are being repeated with only slight
variation.  We've all made our cases--why don't we drop the issue for
a while and let Larry ruminate?  I think we can all agree that he will
give the idea a fair hearing and make a good decision...and I know
that I'll be glad if, tomorrow, I *don't* have 30 mails in my box about
backticks.  :

--Dks


Re: Apocalypse 12

2004-04-17 Thread Piers Cawley
chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Perl.com has just made A12 available:

   http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html

 Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.

But it's all excellent good stuff. Well done Larry and Co. Now, if you
could all just hold off with the questions 'til Monday you'll make a
summary writer's life a good deal easier.

-- 
Biologist: What's worse than being chased by a Velociraptor?
Physicist: Being chased by an Acceloraptor
 -- Larry Wall in A12


Re: backticks

2004-04-17 Thread Juerd
Trey Harris skribis 2004-04-16 12:05 (-0700):
 I'm asking you to stop interpreting disagreement as censorship, prejudice,
 closed-mindedness, or whatever else.  It's not.

I never did interpret disagreement as anything but disagreement, and
never said that I think everyone who disagrees is closed-minded.

Instead of asking me to stop interpreting disagreement as
close-mindedness, ask yourself to stop interpreting closed-minded as
disagreeing.

There is no 'between the lines' in my messages. Stop looking for it.


Juerd


Re: Apocalypse 12

2004-04-17 Thread David Storrs
On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 05:30:01PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
 Perl.com has just made A12 available:
 
   http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/04/16/a12.html
 
 Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.
 
 Enjoy,
 -- c


It's here, it's here, it's he!!
*Ahem*

Sorry.  Will now go off and read quietly.

--Dks


Re: Apocalypse 12

2004-04-17 Thread John Siracusa
On 4/17/04 6:22 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
 chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Warning -- 20 pages, the first of which is a table of contents.
 
 But it's all excellent good stuff. Well done Larry and Co. Now, if you
 could all just hold off with the questions 'til Monday you'll make a
 summary writer's life a good deal easier.

Putting it off will only make things worse for you later! ;)  I have many
A12 questions and comments in the queue, but alas I am busy this weekend so
you're safe for now...

-John



A12 Q: Pointer-to-member-function behavior?

2004-04-17 Thread Austin Hastings

A12
The upshot of these rules is that a private method call is
essentially a subroutine call with a method-like syntax. But the
private method we're going to call can be determined at compile
time, just like a subroutine.
/A12

Is it permissible to use variable dispatch for private methods?

class Cerebellum {
  method :think() {...}
  method :ponder() {...}
  method :cogitate() {...}

  method some_method() {
...
$activity = «:think, :ponder, :cogitate».random;

$brain.$activity;
  }
}

Or would the colons be on the invocation, not the name?

=Austin

PS: Sorry, Piers.



Re: Apocalypse 12

2004-04-17 Thread Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon
chromatic wrote:
Perl.com has just made A12 available:
I started reading it last night, and ended up going to bed before I was 
finished.  But I just wanted to say that this:

With this dispatcher you can continue by saying next METHOD.

is the sort of genius that makes me glad Larry's designing this 
language.  Well done!

--
Brent Dax Royal-Gordon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Perl and Parrot hacker
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.


Apo 12: Space in method calls

2004-04-17 Thread Abhijit A. Mahabal
I do not understand one of the examples in the Use of methods/the dot
notation section:

$obj.method ($x + $y) + $z

From the earlier examples (like $obj.method +1), I got the impression that
you look ahead until you find a term or an operator. In the example above,
isn't ($x + $y) a full term, all by itself, and in that case would not
this mean ($obj.method($x + $y)) + $z, the same as the other call it is
contrasted with:

$obj.method($x + $y) + $z

What am I missing?

--Abhijit

Abhijit A. Mahabal  http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~amahabal/