On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases.
How bizarre? Why does it work that way?
--
Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
"None of our men are "experts."... because no one
"MGS" == Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MGS On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases.
MGS How bizarre? Why does it work that way?
well, my take is that it works for the same reason that
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 12:59:53PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 04:28:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aliasing again. They keys are copies, the values aliases.
How bizarre? Why does it work that way?
keys HASH returns copies of the keys, while values HASH
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:16:52 -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
o The architecture-interrogation primitives are inadequate; there is no
robust way to ask ``am I running on Windows'' or ``am I running on
Unix.''
**We have $^O, but it requires parsing every time**
Uhm, I'm
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:42:43 -0700, root wrote:
I read RFC195 suggesting to drop 'chop' and go with 'chomp'.
What does 'chop' have anything to do with 'chomp'?
I'm totally oppose to that. Consider:
my $s;
map { /\S/ $s .= "$_ " } split(/\s+/,@_);
chop($s);
return $s;
Excuse me, but you're
Today around 10:19pm, Bart Lateur hammered out this masterpiece:
: I, too, once used chop() to get the last character of a string, in my
: case to calculate a barcode check digit.
:
: while(my $digit = chop($barcode)) {
: ...
: }
:
: The while loop should have continued
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
Uhm, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You cannot distinguish
between Windows 95/98/ME on one side, and NT/2k on the other, using $^O
alone. After all, $^O is just a constant burnt into the executable when
perl was compiled.
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 08:56:33PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 10:07:55PM +0100, Bart Lateur wrote:
Uhm, I'm sorry, but that's not good enough. You cannot distinguish
between Windows 95/98/ME on one side, and NT/2k on the other, using $^O
alone. After all, $^O
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:13PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected desire.
What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there, what
kind of signature it has, whether file Bar will be there, what kind of
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:08:21AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:54:13PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
The desire to know the name of the runtime platform is a misdirected desire.
What you really want to know is whether function Foo will be there, what
kind
Jarkko Hietaniemi writes:
True, but you can't do any of all that without knowing the platform
accurately (nontrivial and requires core mod or XS). Once that's
done, the rest is just a matter of extending File::Spec
(trivial and pure Perl).
Trivial? *cough* *snigger*
If it was
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 12:10:31AM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Trivial? *cough* *snigger*
I'd write it up for you right now, but its too big to fit in the
margin.
--
Michael G. Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Skrewtape I've heard that semen tastes
12 matches
Mail list logo
