On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 12:06:36AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:55:56PM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
Why would you care about introducing a new lexical scope? You would
care about that if you used a variable you declared in the commented
code in the code below
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 02:26:28AM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/19/06, Aaron Crane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You don't actually need a macro in that case:
if 0 { q
...
}
Which, of course, eliminates the original desire to have a
code-commenting construct where you just
It occurred to me that other day that in our in house C code we
somewhat frequently use an idiom that's not easily translated into Perl
5. Our rule is that if your commenting out more then 1 or 2 lines of
code that you wrap it in a CPP if statement. The logic being that
if you haven't deleted
to me static IS a behavior. its value is static from call to call.
other overloaded meanings of static from c/c++ are baggage we can drop.
I can see the potental for alot of ambiguaty between the meaning of 'is Static' and
'is Constant' (unless your a c/c++ programmer so your mind is
