Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Edward Peschko
> This isn't an addition to the language that you're talking about - it's > changing some of the fundamental behavior of the language. It's saying > that no longer is Perl a loose, powerful language - oh, you want B&D? well, > we can do that for you too - but rather that Perl is just another

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 22:03, Edward Peschko wrote: > > I *like* the interpretation of undef as 0 and "". It's useful. Sometimes. > > Sometimes it's not. And that's fine. > > No that's NOT fine. It leads to 'find the needle in the haystack' sort of > problems. If you get 1450 'use of

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Edward Peschko
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 08:33:50PM -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:34, Edward Peschko wrote: > > > Well, for one, your example is ill-considered. You are going to get > > autovivification saying: > > The two ideas were disjoint. The example wasn't an example of

Re: State of PDD 0

2001-02-20 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:38, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > > > > I have created perl6-announce-pdd. Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > for clues. > > > > How should the submission process work? As for the RFC's? > > Can you confirm the actual submissio

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread John Porter
What it boils down to is, warnings are for perl to tell you when you probably made a logic error, based on the perl code it sees. What some people might think is merely unperlish code, others might say is "horribly wrong". -- John Porter

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Bart Lateur
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:31:35 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote: >Scalar value @foo[$bar] better written as $foo[$bar], for one. I agree on this one (hash slices too), if this expression is in list context. There is no error in @r = map { blah } @foo{$bar}; -- Bart.

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 16:03, John Porter wrote: > Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > > > > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has > > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly > > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probab

Re: End-of-scope actions: Background.

2001-02-20 Thread Graham Barr
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 03:49:13AM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 01:58:35PM -0700, Tony Olekshy wrote: > > Hi, it's me again, the guy who won't shut up about exception handling. > > I'm trying, > > I'm catching. And I'm thowing (up :) Graham.

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread John Porter
Bryan C. Warnock wrote: > > And there's a difference between warnings originating because something has > gone wrong and those originating because I'm doing something particularly > perlish. Unfortunately, -w doesn't (and probably can't) tell the > difference. Can you give me an example of t

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Bryan C . Warnock
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 14:45, Stephen P. Potter wrote: > Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered > : > | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that > | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG. > > I don't know that I would s

Re: Warnings, strict, and CPAN (Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs)

2001-02-20 Thread Stephen P. Potter
Lightning flashed, thunder crashed and John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> whispered : | Yep; the perl manpage has said, since time immemorial, that | the fact that -w was not on by default is a BUG. I don't know that I would say time immemorial. It wasn't in the man for 4.036. I can only find man

Re: Closures and default lexical-scope for subs

2001-02-20 Thread Peter Scott
At 05:27 PM 2/19/01 +, Piers Cawley wrote: >Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't want to DWIM this. Would it be so bad to have to type > > > > GetOptions (foo => \my ($foo), > > bar => \my $bar); > >If you're really all for maintainability, then surely you

Re: Things have paused... really?

2001-02-20 Thread Simon Cozens
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 12:10:53PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: > o Will experiences from Ruby be assimilated back into Perl? > > o What impact will C# and .NET have on Perl 6? Don't forget >Larry's required reading recommendation: >http://windows.oreilly.com/news/hejlsberg_0800.html

Things have paused... really?

2001-02-20 Thread Garrett Goebel
From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote: > > > >The RFC project should be ongoing and more adaptive. > > It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the plan. The > only reason things have paused (and it is a pause, not a > stop) is that

The Unlambda Programming Language

2001-02-20 Thread Juanma Barranquero
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:17:56 -0600, "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "currying" used in a fascinating context: an experimental > language in which > > http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/#tut In that vein, perh

Re: End-of-scope actions: Toward a hybrid approach.

2001-02-20 Thread Simon Cozens
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:49:45AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:14:52AM +, Simon Cozens wrote: > > > Yes. And the modules on CPAN that already do this are interesting too. > > > > Oh, bother. Oh well, I've got builtinify (which was actually the point of the >