[RELEASE] WWW::Kontent 0.02: Release and revelations

= WWW::Kontent 0.02 I am happy to announce the release of WWW::Kontent 0.02: File: $CPAN/authors/id/B/BR/BRENTDAX/WWW-Kontent-0.02.tar.gz Size: 62121 bytes MD5: 513018f0f2f8a0533a79d0b642323f2b Please note that it may take so

Re: for $arrayref {...}

On 9/1/05, Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-01 20:29 (+0200): > > for ($arrayref,) {...}; # loop body executed only one time > > Yes: scalar in list context. > > > for ($arrayref) {...}; # loop body executed one or three times? > > Same thing: scala

no 6;

I just commited into bleadperl a patch that implements this : $ ./perl -e 'no 5' Perls since v5.0.0 too modern--this is v5.9.3, stopped at -e line 1. BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1. That is, the exact opposite of the current "use VERSION" syntax. One of the uses I had

Re: no 6;

On 9/1/05, Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just commited into bleadperl a patch that implements this : > > $ ./perl -e 'no 5' > Perls since v5.0.0 too modern--this is v5.9.3, stopped at -e line 1. > BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at -e line 1. > > That is, the e

Re: for $arrayref {...}

Ingo Blechschmidt skribis 2005-09-01 20:29 (+0200): > for ($arrayref,) {...}; # loop body executed only one time Yes: scalar in list context. > for ($arrayref) {...}; # loop body executed one or three times? Same thing: scalar in list context. So once. > for $arrayref {...};

for $arrayref {...}

Hi, my $arrayref = ; for @$arrayref {...};# loop body executed three times, of course for ($arrayref,) {...}; # loop body executed only one time for ($arrayref) {...}; # loop body executed one or three times? for $arrayref {...}; # loop body executed one or three t

Re: Operator sub names are not special

On 9/1/05, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 13:43:57 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > > Uh yeah, I think that's what I was saying. To clarify: > > > > sub foo (&prefix:<+>) { 1 == 2 }# 1 and 2 in numeric context > > foo(&say); # nothing printed > > > > But

Re: @array = $scalar

Stuart Cook skribis 2005-09-01 22:49 (+1000): > [1] i.e. magically applies itself to any valid infix operator, just > like »« and [] do , is not a normal binary infix operator. It's not even binary, although it can of course be used with only two operands. Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_ju

Re: @array = $scalar

Ashley Winters skribis 2005-09-01 0:58 (-0700): > If list construction is via the &infix:<,> operator, does that mean a > blasphemous sinner could create &infix:<,=> as a synonym for push? You could do that even without , being a list constructor. However, in general, chained operators like comm

Re: @array = $scalar

On 01/09/05, Ashley Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If list construction is via the &infix:<,> operator, does that mean a > blasphemous sinner could create &infix:<,=> as a synonym for push? If the self-assignment metaoperator works the way I think it does[1], then you shouldn't even need to

Re: Operator sub names are not special

On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 13:43:57 -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > Uh yeah, I think that's what I was saying. To clarify: > > sub foo (&prefix:<+>) { 1 == 2 }# 1 and 2 in numeric context > foo(&say); # nothing printed > > But: > > sub foo (&prefix:<+>) { +1 == +2 } > foo(&say);

Re: @array = $scalar

On 8/31/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > @array = $scalar;# really means > @array = ($scalar,); # same as If list construction is via the &infix:<,> operator, does that mean a blasphemous sinner could create &infix:<,=> as a sy