On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:53:03AM -0700, Matt Youell wrote:
Ok, no fair sniping after a freeze. You were warned. It's called email,
people! Use it. Jeez...
Never too late to withdraw, sir. [1] The less crap we make Larry wade through,
the better.
[1] Well, up until the pregnancy, I guess.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 12:43:45PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
As list chair, I ask either:
1. The people discussing this clarify themselves
2. The people discussing this please drop it
Ho hum. You've heard, I believe, my arguments now. I'm happy to drop the
matter, since it seems a
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 11:31:08PM +0100, Hugo wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Perl6 RFC Librarian writes:
:=head1 ABSTRACT
:
:Remove C?{ code }, C??{ code } and friends.
Whoops, I missed this bit - what 'friends' do you mean?
Whatever even more bizarre extensions people will have suggested
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 08:56:47PM +, Mark-Jason Dominus wrote:
I think the proposal that Joe McMahon and I are finishing up now will
make these obsolete anyway.
Good! The less I have to maintain the better...
--
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum.
-- D.
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 04:55:18PM -0400, Michael Maraist wrote:
A lot of what is trying to happen in (?{..}) and friends is parsing.
That's not the problem that I'm trying to solve. The problem I'm trying
to solve is interdependence. Parsing is neither here nor there.
--
Intel engineering
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 05:41:57AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
. Some criticized it as being too sugary, since this:
$string =~ quotemeta;# $string = quotemeta $string;
Is not as clear as the original. However, there is fairly similar
precedent in:
$x += 5;
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 05:00:51PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
Simon Cozens submitted a patch which failed the test
...and MJD and Jarkko and I worked on it and we put together something
which was OK.
--
You're not Dave. Who are you?
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 05:51:29PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
3. It no longer has a unix specific flavour (PS I am not anti-unix in any
sense) so Mac, VMS and Windows users feel less confused.
Did it get decided that we were *supposed* to make Unix and C programmers
feel more confused
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 02:18:07PM +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
Though a good post condition would benefit from some sort of
unconditional catch of return, I suppose. Perhaps allowing
continue on the outer sub block...
Argh, no! A good postcondition is either invisible to the
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:22:10PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
sub interleave(\@;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
...
}
sub mapf(;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
...
}
I guess my question is, why do these need to be builtins?
sub push (\@@) { @{$_[0]} = (@{$_[0]}, @_[1..@_]); }
--
Addi Just imagine we
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 01:48:36PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
Isn't this covered by locales?
Unicode and locales are immiscible.
In Perl 5. This is *by no means* a general statement.
ICU is, for instance, a Unicode locale library.
--
Gosh that takes me back... or is it forward? That's
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 04:32:40PM +0100, Andy Wardley wrote:
This would permit the rationalisation and simplification of the syntax
required to access individual elements or slices of arrays and hash arrays,
while remaining backwardly compatible with Perl5 syntax.
This is the rationale?
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:31:06PM -0400, Ted Ashton wrote:
But that, precisely, was my point: Arrays *and* hashes.
Scalars, hashes, arrays. There's actually more than one type of plural here,
gramatically:
scalars hashes arrays
singulardualplural
(Or am I the only one
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 08:05:15PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
I've just asked for a multiline comment sublist to be set up. Do any
of the rest of these RFCs want/need a sublist?
What is the purpose of ghettoizing everying cohering topic?
To get those people who actually care about
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 08:13:08PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
Making us subscribe to infinite lists to wear us down?
You know about perl6-all, right?
Which is the very problem of which I was speaking.
Secret cabals and all.
So secret it was recorded on:
i) The perl6 metalist, as
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 08:27:19PM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
Should one really have to find the the time to read each of *hundreds*
of messages each and every day in order to keep up with this stuff?
Nope. That's why you can select which lists you want to join.
I think you're trying to
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:34:36PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
That Perl should stay Perl
Do we need an RFC for this? Seems like this is more of a "guiding
concept" that should be intergrated into everything. Just my opinion.
Then we need to enshrine it. I'll cook something up soon.
--
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 09:39:30AM -1000, Tim Jenness wrote:
Reading through the docs for perl prototypes I see that there is a
reference to "named parameters" being a possibility in future versions of
perl.
Does anyone have a more concrete example of what was intended there?
sub marine
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 09:05:38AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Suggestion: Can we manually renumber this "RFC 0"? This should be the
first one at the top of the list, not buried somewhere within. my($.02).
We *shouldn't* need to spell this out for people.
It really, really terrifies me that we
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 12:24:01PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 02:31 PM 8/4/00 +0200, dLux wrote:
My suggestion is: declare "eval $scalar" as a bad guy.
It's not just string eval. It's also do FILE and require.
Which you need at runtime, even in compiled code, to run external
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:50:39PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
Its a higher level construct. Akin to telling your interior decorator
that you'd like the furniture to match the wallpaper. You've left
out all the details but the decorator can easily see what you're talking
about.
So
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 11:31:30PM -0400, Ken Fox wrote:
not because language design is a fun thing to do of an evening.
Huh? You mean I'm supposed to pretend to not enjoy myself? I keep
all my hair shirts at work, thanks.
Don't be stupid. I said we're *primarily* doing it for the good of
On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 11:47:47PM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
I feel that your RFC misses the inclusive nature of perl.
Then I withdraw it. Perl should not stay Perl, fuck it. Call me when it's
time to get coding.
--
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of the
core entirely)
Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then. On the other hand, there is
a lot of rubbish that *can* go out of core; I'd like to see core being
(Damn these CC's!)
On Fri, Aug 18, 2000 at 09:19:55AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
We seem to be asking for contradictory things here. If it's truly
opaque, the programmer shouldn't care whether it's polymorphic or
monomorphic.
That's right.
I'm inclined to think the polymorphic solution will
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 05:56:36AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
$foo = 'def';
$bar = 'ghi';
$x = "abc$foo$bar";
$y = 'abc$foo$bar';
There is no way to turn obtain the value of $x from the value of $y.
In other words, while $foo and $bar were interpolated
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 03:36:45AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
The current method in which C__WARN__ and C__DIE__ signal handlers are
used is limited in 2ways:
=over 8
=item It does not allow them to accept robust parameter lists.
=item It does not allow for multiple layers of
On Sat, Sep 16, 2000 at 11:38:57PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
I thought he was asking for evaluating until nothing is left to interpolate.
Something akin to:
$x = eval "$x" while $x =~ /[$@]/;
But more intelligent.
OK, fair enough; and I appreciate the point that other double quotes
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 10:51:52AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Are all the possible attributes going to be predefined, or can the
user define new ones?
The user should be able to do anything they damn well like. This is,
allegedly, Perl, which means it's about making it easy to do what the
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:33:07PM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Can we extend RFC 282 so that it allows the right operand of C.. to be
omitted in any index, since the upper-bound can be implied? Or does it
already propose this?
Yes, I wanted this to apply to all slices.
(...in which case
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 09:55:38AM +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
While this may be a fun thing to do - why? what is the application?
I think I said in the RFC, didn't I? It's extending the counting use of tr///
to allow you to count several different letters at once. For instance, letter
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:07:01AM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Bart character it finds. Plus, in Perl 5, NO core function returns a hash.
Bart None at all.
It's not returning a hash.
Precisely. There ain't no such thing as "hash context". It simply returns a
list with an even number
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 03:30:47PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
If you can garantee that it's also not using a hash internally to keep
count, but instead a table parallel to the table that's being used to
hold the conversion values, you've won me over.
Naturally, it's hard to guarantee anything
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 11:10:04AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Indeed. It is also worth noting that people on -flow have been hashing
out safe signals through a "use signal" pragma, which would remove %SIG
altogether.
Oh, well, OK. Then this RFC's necessary, dammit! :)
I like it! But I'm
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:37:58PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
This RFC proposes that the interface to Perl's source filtering facilities
be made much easier to use.
Hm. I've just sent in the "line disciplines" RFC, which probably will end up
obsoleting a reasonable chunk of this.
--
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 02:49:29PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
and how do they nest or get localized? with use signal you can install a
lexically scoped handler or a package level handler. with WARN it looks
like a global handler to me.
They're special subs. They nest and get localized like
On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 03:10:47PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
in what order? like BEGIN and END?
Whatever, yes.
what if you wanted a block scoped warn handler?
What about it? (Or did someone eat the "local" keyword already?)
i think it would be better to have some explicit way of
setting
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:06:47PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Since when do parentheses make things less readable?
Can you say "lisp"?
"lisp".
(defun Schwartzian (func list)
(mapcar
(lambda (x) (car x))
(sort
(mapcar
(lambda (x) (cons x (funcall func x)))
list
)
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 12:43:07PM -0700, Robert Mathews wrote:
Ok, you've proved that lisp doesn't make sense without all those
annoying parentheses. Congratulations. Fortunately, perl isn't lisp.
Correct, John bringing lisp into the discussion *was* a canard.
--
Writing software is more
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 09:52:57AM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
You know, I'm trying to see what's annoying about all those
parentheses in the lisp function and what do you know, I can't see
anything wrong. Okay, so it's not Perl syntax, but it's still clear
what's going on.
I'd go further
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:12:09AM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
The concept of Cnull as opposed to Cundef is sometimes difficult for
people to understand.
"People" in this context being the people who are reading perl6-language and
purporting to be able to know what Perl 6 needs. People
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:49:10PM +0100, Tom Christiansen wrote:
Don't change "use less" to "use optimize". We don't
need to ruin the cuteness.
"use less 'rolled_loops';" sounds really weird.
--
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that
would also stop you
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 02:45:24PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
But on a tangential note: has anyone proposed letting
functions, perhaps by prototype, allow the autoquoting
of arguments?
I thought about it, but it's hard to know when to stop.
use fewer sewers;
would be fine, and I'd like
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:35:39PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Yes, but it's hard to read. Lisp requires parens, because it
has no precedence rules. (Well, hardly any). It has (almost)
no other syntax. This is the situation we would like to avoid
in perl. By letting every operator have
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 10:00:49AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Y'know, I couldn't have said this better myself. :-) I've always felt
that "use English" was a waste of time and effort, a bandaid trying to
act as a tourniquet.
I think it's a nice
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 02:40:04PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
Tom Christiansen wrote:
Perl's use of @ISA is beautiful.
use base is, or can be, pretty silly --
think pseudohashes, just for one.
I suppose you diddle @INC directly, Tom,
instead of use'ing lib?
I call "non sequitur"!
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:34:55AM +, Ed Mills wrote:
I tried to contribute on this list bu
--
"He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable."
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 09:39:20AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 02:34:55AM +, Ed Mills wrote:
I tried to contribute on this list bu
[You know, I think something went wrong there. Let's try again.]
The RFC process gets you a hotline to Larry on an equal footing
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 04:13:46PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
Did anyone suggest the following yet?
package Foo;
my sub _helper_function { ... }
Todo:
lexically scoped functions: my sub foo { ... }
the basic concept is easy and sound,
the difficulties begin with
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 03:48:07PM +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
This is done in Lisp, and other functional languages. Lisp lets you
declare mutually recursive objects using the (letrec ...) form. In
Scheme, say:
(letrec ((even? (lambda (x) (if (= x 0) t (odd? (- x 1)
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 08:36:32AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
against them. The whole point of this Perl 6 process is to develop a
language that the community thinks is the right direction, right?
Really? I thought the whole point of this was to develop suggestions to
put to Larry, for him to
On Sun, Oct 08, 2000 at 01:12:13PM +0100, raptor wrote:
[expression for variable in sequence]
Can this be done easly at the moment OR via some of the new proposals ?!!!?
map { expression } sequence
--
I used to be disgusted, now I find I'm just amused.
-- Elvis Costello
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:47:10PM +0100, raptor wrote:
What will be the Perl6 code name ?
I vote for "Perl 6".
even the perl books has some animal to represent the main idea behind...
Well, no, the O'Reilly ones had, but then most O'Reilly books have animals on
them. Oh, and Beginning Perl
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:39:14PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Got me. I'd planned on us writing perl 6 in INTERCAL.
PLEASE LET'S NOT GO THAT WAY
Incidentally, and just to try and raise the tone a little, are we planning on
compiling Perl 6 programs to native binaries?
--
These days, if
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
PLEASE LET'S NOT GO THAT WAY
A... you're no fun! :)
I am, but nurse says I'm not allowed to write INTERCAL any more.
That is one of the scenarios. There are some issues with it for a project
like this--spitting out
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:37:02PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, maybe we can do it in befunge instead.
+!+!@@!!!
Oh, without a doubt. I'd actually like to get things building such that the
four main modules--parser, bytecode compiler, optimizer, and execution
engine--are in separate
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 04:03:12PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
But we'll probably *implement* perl in Ada, of course.
Bzzt. Ada *used* to be the language that made the world turn. We believe that
the world-turning program was rewritten in Perl in 1997.
--
Thus spake the master programmer:
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 04:38:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The one thing that just occurred to me is that we're going to need to
support multiple interpreter targets simultaneously. Having the back-end
emit C source isn't going to get those BEGIN blocks very far. :(
Don't forget that
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 04:51:24PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
only perl op calls in machine code
I can't make this make any sense. Could you try again?
--
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing
what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 03:40:26PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
Don't forget that those BEGIN blocks are *supposed* to be instructions
to the compiler.
Er, but a lot of people seem to use them for other things :-)
Then they're going to have a shock. This isn't Perl 5 any more, Toto.
What
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:18:15PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
basically the emitted machine code for TIL is very simplified C
routine calls and their argument setup and return. all the routine calls
are to perl ops with just the minimal stack glue code in between them.
OK, you're re-inventing
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:33:23PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
so the TIL generated code would still to parameter setup, then an
indirect function call and then result handling. it should still be
faster than an interpreter and simpler to generate than fully compiled
code.
Is this actually, in
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:35:31PM +0100, Ajdin Brandic wrote:
Uff!
Da.
Why is there a mailing list for perl6 up and running before the version is
out?
Someone's gotta *write* it. I hear there's a mailing list for Linux 2.4.
--
I _am_ pragmatic. That which works, works, and theory can go
On Sun, Oct 29, 2000 at 01:36:48PM +, David Grove wrote:
ana: no, not having, none, anti
phalis: ...
It's the front part of your helmet which protects your nose.
--
"He was a modest, good-humored boy. It was Oxford that made him insufferable."
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:11:56PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Barring anyone else doing it, I should go to YAPC and talk about perl 6's
guts, at least the bits available at that point. TPC too. ('Course, there's
the question of getting there, but that's a separate issue)
Well, if you can't,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 12:04:46PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote:
It doesn't have to be like that. Functions that are not in the core can
still be automatically loaded, but only if your code actually uses them.
That could make the perl kernel a lot smaller than it is now, and
hopefully,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 05:51:27PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
you *don't* need to remember
you are programming in perl5 or perl6, and get the same functionality.
But you need to remember it anyway, so remembering it for time() is
no added burden.
Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:57:43PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps some of the more grossly UNIX specific things like getpwnam's
extended family and the SysV IPC stuff?
But why? What is it going to buy you?
The fact is, they don't need to be there.
And there isn't really a good
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 09:00:47AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
Uhm. NO! Remembering that $x+1 things have changed is an "added burden"
over remembering that $x things have changed.
Not as x approaches infinity.
We are not changing an infinite number of things.
Please knock it off with the
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:52:37AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
just a method for doing what we currently do with, say, glob or
the heavy unicode things?
None of the above. What I'm looking for is the pieces that turn the use of
a function into an automagic use of the module containing
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 10:14:20AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The module loaded can define the routines as either regular
perl subs or opcode functions (the difference is in calling convention
mainly) and could be the standard mix of perl or compiled code.
Would someone care to take a
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 11:45:16AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
For example, take a look at RFC 28 (whose title
happens to be "Perl should stay Perl"): nothing but ill-
informed, petulant, absurd whinging about certain classes
of proposed features that the author, in his humble little
opinion,
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:10:55PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 04:02:31PM +, Tim Bunce wrote:
of the Foo interface (one SX and one pure-perl, for example).
s/SX/XS/ of course.
Dammit. And there was I thinking you'd already designed the extension
system for Perl 6! :)
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 10:35:56AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
Or eliminate $ and @ from the language. :-) or rather :-/.
Well, you can do that now that
foo = bar;
calls the AUTOLOADed lvalue sub foo. The rest of the implementation is
left as an exercise for the reader. :)
--
On our
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:35:59AM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
use autoload { Bar = 'http://www.cpan.org/modules/Bar' },
{ Baz = 'ftp://my.local.domain/perl-modules/Baz', VERSION =
2 };
Very good idea indeed!!! Append the wishlist to add this module to perl6's
standard
On Mon, Feb 05, 2001 at 11:04:06PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Granted, if this was all done with trusted servers it would be really neat,
but...
TANSTAATS.
--
I used to be disgusted, now I find I'm just amused.
-- Elvis Costello
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 12:11:19AM -0800, yaphet jones wrote:
[Ruby]
*no god complex
*no high priests
I'll tell Matz you said that.
--
hantai mo hantai aru:
The reverse side also has a reverse side.
-- Japanese proverb
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 05:58:34PM -0300, Branden wrote:
I find a "let's require some extra hoops and red tape" not very-Perl like.
Perl is there for the programmer; not the other way around.
Please read ``Larry's talk in Atlanta about Perl 6'', the text is in
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 03:45:21PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
But they are inextricably bound by perl's parsing rules.
Perl 5's parsing rules. I don't think Perl 6 *has* a parser just yet.
You can't keep Perl6 Perl5.
See?
--
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth? Judging from
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:02:08AM -0800, yaphet jones wrote:
the tchrist (christiansen) said it best, when he described perl5:
...an "expert-friendly" language...
And he was right. Perl is *not* deliberately dumbed down, because, unlike
other languages, we do *not* assume our users are dumb.
Feeding the troll:
= example 2: ruby
= now more popular than python in its native japan
Python isn't native to Japan.
--
MISTAKES:
It Could Be That The Purpose Of Your Life Is Only To Serve As
A Warning To Others
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 02:01:55AM -0800, yaphet jones wrote:
gentlemen - gomen nasai!
dou itashimashite. I have to be honest, it's not very often I'm called a
dimwit. Certainly not twice.
But there is a deeper problem! People appear to be losing their sense of
satire; this is terrible! Soon
Incidentally, I just implemented pre- and post- handlers on subroutines
in pure Perl 5, without any changes to the language. Interesting, huh?
sub foo { print "Bar\n"; }
append_to_sub {print "After!\n"} foo; # Perl 5.6.x (\) syntax
append_to_sub {print "After!\n"}, \foo; # Perl 5.6 syntax
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 06:46:11PM +, Simon Cozens wrote:
This actually came as a side-track to something else I was doing which was to
make some subroutines appear like builtins; (available from all packages)
I'll put Sub::Versive on CPAN when I've done *that*.
It's up. Enjoy.
--
Use
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 09:00:11PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
Simon Cozens wrote:
Incidentally, I just implemented pre- and post- handlers on subroutines
in pure Perl 5, without any changes to the language. Interesting, huh?
Yes. And the modules on CPAN that already do
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.
--
"Dogs believe they are human. Cats believe they are God."
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
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
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 08:30:31AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
Seen http://dev.perl.org/rfc/82.pod?
I hadn't. I'm surprised it didn't give the PDL people screaming fits.
But no, I wouldn't do it like that. It has:
@b = (1,2,3);
@c = (2,4,6);
@d = @b * @c; # Returns (2,8,18)
Where I would
On Tue, Mar 20, 2001 at 11:15:51PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
So you think
@s =
map { $_-[0] }
sort { $a-[1] = $b-[1] }
map { [ $_, /num:(\d+)/ ] }
@t;
would be more clearly written as
@s = schwartzian(
{
second_map = sub { $_-[0] },
On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 11:34:41PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
- Make readability your main objective. Readability is possibly the
weakest part of Perl.
There's nothing fundamentally about Perl that makes it unreadable. Seriously.
Perl doesn't write unreadable Perl, people do. You can write some
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 10:50:09AM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
SC it? That is, @s = sort { f($a) = f($b) } @t
because that would require the PSI::ESP module which isn't working
yet. how would perl intuit exactly the relationship between the records
and the keys extraction and comparison?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 04:36:35PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
SC Do you see any ESP there? Do you see any parsing of arbitrary
SC pieces of code? No, me neither.
and even creating a function to extract the key is not for beginners in
many case. most of the time i see issues with the ST
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 04:54:51PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
well, you must be hanging around smart newbies. :)
No, I just learn 'em right. :)
--
The Blit is a nice terminal, but it runs emacs.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 11:33:18PM +0200, Otto Wyss wrote:
Could you imaging being the leader of a 10 people project where
everybody design and codes in their own unique manner?
No, which is why in *those* situations, you have house rules. I don't
think Perl stops you doing that. It just
On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:59:19AM -0500, John Porter wrote:
I mean, in general, it would be nice if there were a way to have
perl memoize for us, rather than have to arrange it ourself.
Again with the over-specific solutions! What you seem to want is for
(for instance)
sub foo :memoize
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 04:34:22PM -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
Of course. So how is the ST justified when you simply want to
sort by length? I.e., why is this not sufficient:
Those of the School of Maniacal Optimization may prefer calling
length() only O(N) times, instead of O(N log
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:28:34PM -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
I was very glad to see Larry address RFC 28 in the way he did; this will
be quoted often in the future, both concerning being "needlessly fearful"
of Perl adopting a different language paradigm, as well as the "essence"
of Perl being
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:42:23AM +, David Grove wrote:
Apocalypse is a greek word meaning that which comes out from (apo- eq away
from) hiding, i.e., revelation. In the biblical sense, it refers to
revealing that which was previously unseen or unheard, hidden behind a
veil of worlds or
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 12:15:19PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
That is, every
Perl 6 program begins with "module main". Maybe there's a better way to
implement this? ("use 6.0" has much the same problem)
"IDENTIFICATION DIVISION"
--
DISCLAIMER:
Use of this advanced computing technology does
1 - 100 of 416 matches
Mail list logo
