feather.perl6.nl decommissioned

2015-02-28 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Hi all,

Just a short message to let you know that the server(s) known as
feather will be shut down, permanently, 2015-03-31.

All data will be deleted, so if there's anything in your home dir that
you still want to have, get it now.

If you have any DNS records pointing to any of these addresses, please
remove them, because the IP addresses may be repurposed:

- 193.200.132.135
- 193.200.132.142
- 193.200.132.146
- 2a02:2308:10::f:1
- 2a02:2308:10::f:2
- 2a02:2308:10::f:3
- 2a02:2308:10::f:*
- 2a02:2308:10::f:*:*

Feather has been online since 2005. There's a new server, run by Moritz
Lenz. If you want access to the new server, read about signing up at
http://perlgeek.de/blog-en/perl-6/2014-community-server-live.html

I'm sending this to perl6-language, because that's where the original
feather announcement was posted.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet, // Kind regards, // Korajn salutojn,

Juerd Waalboer  ju...@tnx.nl
TNX


Re: What is the self pragma?

2008-04-12 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Larry Wall skribis 2008-04-12  9:26 (-0700):
 Now that people have gotten used to self.foo and $.foo, it may be
 that the demand for the pragma has fallen off a bit...  :)

I hope it has. Perl 6 would be less confusing without this pragma.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Nomenclature Question - BEGIN etc.

2008-04-10 Thread Juerd Waalboer
My suggestion:

consequential blocks
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14489 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2008-01-10 Thread Juerd Waalboer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2008-01-10 16:14 (-0800):
 +(Note that C.bytes is not guaranteed to be well-defined when the encoding
 +is unknown.

(This message is a mess; in my defense, it's 5:30 AM here. I just had to
respond, because I have the feeling Perl 6's unicode model is going
exactly the wrong way if I interpret this diff correctly.)

What if the encoding is known, but by accessing the .bytes level one
breaks the consistency?

Rather than a scheme where unicode text strings have an encoding
property, I think a scheme where unicode text strings are just unicode
text strings is better: the *binary* strings can have an encoding
property.

So:

* A Str is a sequence of codepoints, and provides grapheme/glyphs if
  requested. It does not have bytes, and the internal encoding does not
  show except through introspection. The internal encoding can
  theoretically change at Perl's will.
* A Buf is a sequence of bytes, not codepoints or characters of any
  kind.
* A Buf with a defined .encoding:
  - does Str, with transparent decoding (with validity checking)
  - also, transparent encoding

my Str $foo = H€łłø wöŕłđ;
my Buf $bar;
$bar.encoding = utf-8;  # or however a decoding is declared
$bar = $foo;  # gets utf-8 encoded
$bar.bytes;   # [ H, \xE2, \x82, \xAC, ... ]
$bar.codes;   # [ H, €, ł, ... ]
$foo.codes eqv $bar.codes  # true
$foo.bytes;   # Huh? What? Makes no sense - fail

All byte-oriented mechanisms can have an encoding defined somehow:
filehandles, environment variables, Bufs, system call wrappers.

I think that would work much easier than giving Strs encoding
properties. When writing to a file, or a Buf, you're probably using a
lot of Strs, and it would make no sense to have them all encode
differently. Likewise, when reading from IO, a Buf, or anything
byte-oriented, the encoding will have to be known to decode it.

I fail to see how giving a Str any .bytes or .encoding might make sense:
these belong to byte strings, not text strings.

Making it easy to work with the internal byte buffer will take away
means of optimization, ease of changing our mind about the best
implementation encoding, and either security or performance (Either you
check the consistency every time you do something and everything is
slow, or you don't, and everything is potentially insecure when passed
on to other code.) Of course, the current internal encoding and byte
buffer should be accessible somehow, and maybe even writable for the
brave of heart, but IMO certainly not with the way too encouraging
.bytes thing - I'm tempted to call for .HOW.internal.

I think that a Buf with a defined encoding should check whether the data
is valid when reading, but a Str can skip this: Perl itself put the data
there, and trusts its own routines for much better performance.

Please, don't give Strs any byte semantics, but do give Bufs support for
transparent en-/decoding, and perhaps even unicode semantics.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: xml and perl 6

2007-11-29 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Danny Brian skribis 2007-11-29 10:57 (-0700):
 Perhaps a pro XML-er can weigh in. Unlike many others on this list, I
 use XML for almost everything. I think the point is what you're
 saying here above, Jim. The benefits you describe of a native XML data type
 boil down to a) encouraging a common approach to processing, and b)
 not having to import modules.

And it does, but it doesn't have to be native. It can be just
standard, including de facto standard.

Yes, XML is essential for many programmers. Yes, having a standard XML
data type can certainly improve things for many people.

But why on earth would it need to be bundled with Perl? All you need to
make something the de facto standard, is to be good and the first, or
better than all existing options.

DBI is Perl 5's primary database API. Very few people ever consider
using anything else. I think as many people use DBI as use XML in some
way. It is NOT bundled with Perl, and has never been. Yet it is
extremely popular.

Do the same with XML, please. If anyone else reading this, feels like
building this data type, with the code to back it, by all means please
start today. But putting it in the core only helps in the
forcing-down-one's-throat area. It doesn't improve maintenance,
flexibility, or usability one bit.

 Encouraging a common approach is not an easy or necessarily smart
 thing in the XML space.

Still, though, XML is very probably flexible enough (with its roles)
that a single XML data type can still be a good idea. Something
representing an XML element with its children is incredibly useful when
standardised. And if it doesn't do what you want, just add a role that
makes it do that.

 A native XML type would only serve to antiquate Perl 6 long before
 it's time (!), and is therefore a ... nonstarter.

Amen.
-- 
Met vriendelijke groet,  Kind regards,  Korajn salutojn,

  Juerd Waalboer:  Perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  Convolution: ICT solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Ternary endweight alternative?

2007-06-29 Thread Juerd Waalboer
raiph skribis 2007-06-29  1:10 (-0700):
   system('cls' !! 'clear' ?? ($?OS eq any MSWin32 mingw));

I read this as: given 'cls', use 'clear' if not, and ($?OS eq ...) if
so. Which doesn't make sense, because 'cls' is always true.

Note that I ofter write ternaries on three lines:

condition
?? if_so
!! if_not

And that's probably why I read your example as

condition
!! if_not
?? is_so

Instead of

if_not !!
if_so  ??
condition

(I have no idea how this could be indented in a useful way.)

And this ambiguity is, IMO, more than enough reason to disallow this. As
for the end weight problem, try formatting the thing in three lines like
I do. That quickly makes it readable again:

system $?OS eq any MSWin32 mingw
?? 'cls'
!! 'clear';

This puts system, cls and clear all on the left side.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Web Module (Was: Perl6 new features)

2007-06-25 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Hakim Cassimally skribis 2007-06-25  9:57 (+0200):
 Releasing a language without a useful, easily installable library bundle
 could quite reasonably be construed as a stupid business practice.

A useful, easily installable library bundle does not have to be in the
core distribution.

Debian already has its own split between perl and perl-modules. This is
a great scheme that allows Debian to use Perl in the base system,
without requiring the loads of unused modules that usually come with it.
If you need those modules, though, you can easily install them.

It would be great if Perl had this by default, because it would make it
easier for vendors to choose to use Perl in their base system. It would
also make Perl a more attractive choice for embedded systems.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Referring to source code within Perldoc: the new A code

2007-06-21 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Smylers skribis 2007-06-21 21:33 (+0100):
 That doesn't follow.

It's an opinion.

 I disagree.  perldoc.perl.org was started by JJ, gained popularity, and
 then got awarded the official blessing of the onion.  Over the years
 there have many several sites with Perl documenation.

That's not a way of documenting things, it's just an interface to
existing documentation. It provides no semantic search featurewhatsoever,
and can't, because Perl's documentation wasn't built like that.

The documentation for CGI is very different from the documentation for
IO::Socket::INET, although both are (can be) OO.

That's okay if you read the things like a book, but structured
documentation with structured interfaces allow readers to more easily
use the documentation for reference.

 Let the same thing happen with Perl 6: allow innovation, and if you, or
 Markov, or anybody creates a particularly fine site then people will
 admire it, use it ... and then perhaps it can be made official.

Sure, but it's a huge chicken-egg problem that doesn't have to exist.

 There isn't really anything to be gained by pre-empting this and picking
 something initially.

I disagree very strongly.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: POD - Code entanglement

2007-06-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-06-14 17:18 (+0200):
 So maybe directives like method, sub, attribute, class etc. might be a
 better choice regarding semantics.

Yes, a better choice indeed. But I would still not be happy with it,
because there would still be a lot of code duplication.

method foo (:$bar = 5) { ... }

I don't want to have to mention *again* that the thing is a method,
and that it is called foo, that it has a named argument identified
as $bar, which defaults to 5.

This is why I (long time ago) suggested is documented. Like Mark, I do
not really care about the actual syntax much:

method foo is documented(Foos its argument interactively)
(
:$bar = 5 is documented(Object to be fooed),
# I'm not sure about the precedence of is.
) {
...
}

The backtick is rather cute and saves a lot of typing. It's like a
comment (#), but ends up as *external* documentation. That's nice.

 Semantics are very useful in documentation, why throw them away?

Why not have both? With normal POD as suggested by Damian, you could
still generate it from something else. A few macros could help ignore
the inline documentation.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Generalizing ?? !!

2007-06-11 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Zev Benjamin skribis 2007-06-11  0:57 (-0400):
 ?? and !! could always return some kind of result object that boolizes
 to true or false.

Can we *please* keep simple things simple?
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: PERL arrays

2007-06-05 Thread Juerd Waalboer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2007-06-05 14:36 (-0700):
 how do i declare loop through and print a 4 dim array in PERL

Please note that Perl 6 is still not an acronym. It's not PERL, but
Perl.

Datastructures are documented in Synopsis 9, at
http://dev.perl.org/perl6/doc/design/syn/S09.html

I couldn't find how to loop over multidimensionally shaped arrays; maybe
you can and maybe someone can show an example.

...Are you sure you were asking about Perl 6?
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: propose renaming Hash to Dict

2007-05-31 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Dictionaries are usually alphabetically ordered. Hashes are not.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is Perl 6 too late?

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14  0:42 (+0200):
 excessive use of special characters (/\W/).

This seems to be I don't like regexes. Ignoring for now that Perl 6
regexes will be more verbose and thus easier to read for someone without
much prior exposure to them, what would you suggest as an alternative to
regex matching?

One of the common alternatives is to iterate over a list of characters,
possibly using an index. Would you say that a screen page full of such
code is easier to read and maintain than a single regex on a single
line?

Many languages have regexes, even the cleanest among them. And they're
all as messy as Perl's. They're often more verbose on the outside, which
can result in something like foo.match(/foo/) instead of foo =~ /foo/,
but the /foo/ part is most important here. If you don't recognise what
that is, it doesn't matter if .match or =~ was used.

Many languages have regexes, but Perl was probably the first to apply
them heavily in normal programming. And nowadays, they're so
ubiquitous that it's hard to find a language without Perl-ish or Perl
compatible regexes. Why do you think this is?

I think it's kind of funny that indeed exactly the most cryptic part of
Perl's syntax is copied to so just about every modern programming
language, while at the same time Perl is constantly criticized for using
special characters so much.

No, special characters aren't a problem. They are the fundament of a
very powerful and expressive syntax. Just don't try to understand a
screen full of them all at once -- realise that in another language, the
first three lines would sometimes already fill the same screen, and
adjust your reading speed.

On the other hand, the overall structure of a program is often more
obvious, exactly because so much more fits in one screenful.

In Perl it is often not needed to refactor something to many tiny
subroutines with verbose identifiers, just for legibility.

One thing stays true, though: Perl is very hard to read for someone who
doesn't know Perl well enough. But that's practically true for almost
language, be it Python or Japanese.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Sigils by example (was: Re: Is Perl 6 too late?)

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14 22:20 (+0200):
 But I think that the name of an identifier (noun/verb, single/plural,
 the meaning of the word) already gives enough context to understand what
 type it is.

So is user_id a variable or a type? How about substring or
document?

Is new a function, or a variable? How about old?

Is is_valid a function that determines whether something is valid, or
a variable holding the result of this test?

When you have update(delete_random), where both update and
delete_random are functions, does this pass the function delete_random
to update, or does it first delete something, and then pass the
resulting value to update? Don't forget that one of the important
decisions in Perl was that we don't always like to use parentheses,
because that clutters code (and you don't want that!!).

Given HTML Element, is HTML the type and Element the variable of that
type, or is Element the type, and HTML the variable (for example, to
hold the html element object)?

Is pid a variable you used yourself, for example as the return value
from fork, or does pid give you the pid of your current process? And
if the latter, is that by calling the pid function, or because pid is a
variable?

Doesn't count input look wrong to you? It should, because count is a
hash! By the way, what would input be?

And how on earth would you write object.foo(), where foo is a variable
holding a reference to a method, not the name of the method, if you had
no sigils?


...


...


...


...


...

| So is user_id a variable or a type? How about substring or
| document?

The Perl Way:

$user_id is a variable, $substring is a variable, $document is a
variable.

user_id is not a variable, substring is not a variable, document is not
a variable.

| Is new a function, or a variable? How about old?

The Perl Way:

$new is a variable, $old is a variable.

new is not a variable, old is not a variable.

| Is is_valid a function that determines whether something is valid, or
| a variable holding the result of this test?

The Perl Way:

$is_valid is a variable.

is_valid is not a variable.

| When you have update(delete_random), where both update and
| delete_random are functions, does this pass the function delete_random
| to update, or does it first delete something, and then pass the
| resulting value to update? 

The Perl 6 Way:

update(delete_random) passes the function delete_random to update.

update(delete_random) calls the function delete_random, and passes
whatever it returned to update.

| Given HTML Element, is HTML the type and Element the variable of that
| type, or is Element the type, and HTML the variable (for example, to
| hold the html element object)?

The Perl 6 Way:

HTML $Element is a variable of the type HTML.

$HTML Element is a syntax error caught early by the compiler. (And
that's really great if your native language makes you think the other
way around than the programming language wants you to.)

| Is pid a variable you used yourself, for example as the return value
| from fork, or does pid give you the pid of your current process? 
| And if the latter, is that by calling the pid function, or because
| pid is a variable?

The Perl Way:

$pid is a variable that you set yourself.

pid is not a variable.

$*PID is a variable, that represents the pid of your current process.

| Doesn't count input look wrong to you? It should, because count is a
| hash! By the way, what would input be?

The Perl Way:

%count $input (or %count input) looks wrong, error caught even before
compile time, programmer time and energy conserved.

| And how on earth would you write object.foo(), where foo is a variable
| holding a reference to a method, not the name of the method, if you had
| no sigils?

The Perl Way:

$object.foo() calls the method called foo.

$object.$foo() calls the method that is in the variable $foo.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is Perl 6 too late?

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-14 22:31 (+0200):
 $.but! (*adding$ %*characters _+that^# $might) @#not_ !#be()
 !necessary_ *#$doesn't! *(make) [EMAIL PROTECTED] =_easier

Those characters are meaningless. The many symbols in Perl 6 have very
distinct meanings, which makes them very powerful tools!

 Oh, I thought Perl was a programming language. My fault.
 Apples and oranges.

There is a reason that C programmers don't throw away their source code
after compiling it.

While in some companies, writing software is indeed a unidirectional
process, most companies that wish to survive have to maintain what they
wrote, and then you also have to read it.

Programming languages and spoken languages are both read by human
beings, so they should still be easily parsed by these creatures.

 Most modern scripting languages don't need the semicolons. I think
 there's no plausible reason for them.

They typically have a line continuation character instead of a
semicolon, though. However, like the previous sentence, and this one
too, actually, sometimes there is a line break in between.

Again, written language can be a nice example, because if we had line \
continuation characters in here, it would suddenly look a lot \
different. Did you, while reading this, pause, just before different?
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Sigils by example

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-15  0:48 (+0200):
  The Perl Way:
  $object.foo() calls the method called foo.
  $object.$foo() calls the method that is in the variable $foo.
 My way:
 someref = somemethod
 object.someref()
 Of course you could argue that you don't know in advance, if object
 has a method with that name, so you cannot manually avoid the conflict.

Indeed. Now you have to know your object very well, and avoid all of its
method names for variable names. For example, an HTTP::Request object
has a .headers method. If Your Way were in effect, I could no longer
safely use the name headers for my own variables, and then still call
the headers method on the object.

Perl allows both avoiding clashes and not-avoiding clashes. Your way
only strictly requires the former programming style. And since my
preferred style is different, I'm glad you're not designing Perl 6.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Sigils by example (was: Re: Is Perl 6 too late?)

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Jonathan Lang skribis 2007-05-14 14:52 (-0700):
 Good examples.  Now could you provide some to explain to me why it's
 important to distinguish between '$', '@', '%', and ''?

It's useful code self documentation, but not very important, in my
opinion.

If you have sigils, it makes sense to have different sigils for
different things, because that allows very nice shorthands (remember how
this thread was originally more or less about avoiding clutter?) like:

sub foo (@bar, $baz) { ... }

And of course, different behaviour in list context:

my @quux = (@foo, @bar);  # These arrays foo and bar flatten
my @quux = ($foo, $bar);  # These arrays foo and bar do not

That's a subtle yet very useful distinction.

But this is just very handy, not important.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Is Perl 6 too late?

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-15  1:03 (+0200):
  On the other hand, the overall structure of a program is often more
  obvious, exactly because so much more fits in one screenful.
 My suggestions won't have an impact on the expressiveness of Perl.

Not so.

Consider /@foo/, which is an alternation of all the elements of @foo.
That's not just interpolation, it's something very smart, and even
without seeing the context that this regex is in, I know how to read
this. I don't have to scroll back up to find out that foo was once
assigned an array.

 So in many cases you might have even less characters on your screen.

Less characters isn't always better. Often it's worse, sometimes it's
better. It appears to me a hell of a job to find out when it's what, and
I think Larry figured it out quite well.

 Of course some special character sequences would be replaced by word
 character sequences, but that won't fill your screen by a magnitude.

Of course. Every symbol can be substituted for a word comma but that
doesn apostrophe t automatically make code easier to read period I think
a language needs a good balance between symbols and letters comma and
for a programming language comma I think alternating between the two is
close to a perfect balance comma whereas in human languages once, every
$few (words) is.probablybetter; period
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Sigils by example

2007-05-14 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-05-15  1:52 (+0200):
 Would it be a good idea to call methods on objects, that never thought
 of this methods?

Absolutely! Roles can be used for that too.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: What should file test operators return?

2007-04-13 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Damian Conway skribis 2007-04-13 20:01 (+1000):
 Maybe there also needs to be a boolean conversion for printf
 (perhaps %t for true?):

I often use [ ] and [X] to represent true and false in text output.
They resemble checkboxes. I don't think printf needs a boolean output
template, but it would be nice if it were configurable.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [svn:perl6-synopsis] r14357 - doc/trunk/design/syn

2007-03-28 Thread Juerd Waalboer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skribis 2007-03-28 13:17 (-0700):
 +block) early using the Cbreak verb.  More precidely, it leaves the

precisely?
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ik vertrouw stemcomputers niet.
Zie http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/.


Re: lexical subs

2007-03-09 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Just a short note: please, if this is implemented, make sure that either
Perl 6 conforms to Perl 5 behaviour, or the other way around. 
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ik vertrouw stemcomputers niet.
Zie http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/.


Re: lexical subs

2007-03-09 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Juerd Waalboer skribis 2007-03-09 21:27 (+0100):
 Just a short note: please, if this is implemented, make sure that either
 Perl 6 conforms to Perl 5 behaviour, or the other way around. 

Wanted to CC this list, but by accident replaced the To instead. Now
CC'ing p5p.
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ik vertrouw stemcomputers niet.
Zie http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/.


Re: [S09] Whatever indices and shaped arrays

2007-03-06 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Jonathan Lang skribis 2007-03-06 13:35 (-0800):
 Could someone advise me on how to create patches?

Single file:

diff -u oldfile newfile

Entire tree:

diff -Nur oldtree/ newtree/

See also diff(1), and note that when diffing trees, you want to
distclean them first :)
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ik vertrouw stemcomputers niet.
Zie http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/.


Re: for ... else

2007-03-03 Thread Juerd Waalboer
Thomas Wittek skribis 2007-03-03 23:17 (+0100):
 Larry Wall:
  : if ($item = 'foobar') {
 == of course ;)

Or how about eq? :)
-- 
korajn salutojn,

  juerd waalboer:  perl hacker  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://juerd.nl/sig
  convolution: ict solutions and consultancy [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Ik vertrouw stemcomputers niet.
Zie http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/.