On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
: policy decision.
Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
named after the actual site, not some
At 03:44 PM 4/28/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
: policy decision.
Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
named after the actual site, not some generic name like
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:44:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, I was thinking that generally the site policy would be expressed in a
single file
This smells strangely familiar. Alot like the .perlrc discussion that
was had back many moons ago. The havoc a general syntax-altering
policy
At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 02:44:17PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
Well, I was thinking that generally the site policy would be expressed
in a
single file
This smells strangely familiar. Alot like the .perlrc discussion that
was had back
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
To use a Perl 5 example, consider the simple setting of use strict
as a general site policy. Basicaly, most of the Perl code in your
/usr/bin will explode when you try to run
At 05:37 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 11:44:24AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 04:30 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
To use a Perl 5 example, consider the simple setting of use strict
as a general site policy. Basicaly, most of the Perl
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:49:28PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 05:37 PM 4/29/2001 +0100, Michael G Schwern wrote:
By optional I take it you mean an admin can choose to define their
own site policy or not?
No. Optional in that you have to do a use SomePolicyThingWeHaventDecided;
to put
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 12:20:42PM -0700, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
don't know which archive you are talking about, but
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/ should have
all mails sent to perl6-language from it's start to a few days ago
when I moved stuff around.
I think I
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Unfortunately, the perl6-language archive doesn't seem to go back far
enough to cover the .perlrc discussion. Is the old archive still
around?
don't know which archive you are talking about, but
Damian Conway wrote:
You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
the general. Surely that should be:
use Policy::O::Reilly;
I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would
be someone as illustrious as Damian.
Do you think Larry doesn't know
You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
the general. Surely that should be:
use Policy::O::Reilly;
I knew someone would argue that, but I didn't think it would
be someone as illustrious as Damian.
Illustrious???
Do
Damian Conway wrote:
If it's a policy, it should go under Policy::
If it's an OReilly site module, it should go under OReilly, eh?
What's general and what's specific is entirely a matter of
perspective, since OReilly and Policy are entirely
orthogonal concepts.
Surely you wouldn't condone
If I work at OReilly, I don't need a Local:: in front of my
OReilly to tell me that it's a local namespace.
but you need OReilly in front? do you label your clothes Shirt and
Pants as well? might be orthagonal but the top level should serve
a useful purpose instead of something along the lines
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 05:06:03PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
OReilly::Policy is (or might be) still general before
specific. OReilly::* might be a whole family of site-
specific modules.
Policy::* is *guaranteed* to be a large family of site-specific modules,
hopefully even larger than the
I think we have to be careful here. We should ask people to name site
policy files after their site, and not use a generic name like
site_policy, since we'd be likely to end up with 20 different
standard site_policy files wandering around the net. So something
like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: use OReilly::Policy;
:
: or
:
: use Mongolian::Navy::ProcurementOffice::Policy;
:
: might be more in order.
:
: You Americans and your non-ISO penchant for putting the specific before
: the general. Surely that should be:
:
:
At 01:51 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser
: tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may
: well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start:
:
:use
Dan Sugalski writes:
: I hadn't really considered having a separate module for each type of site
: policy decision.
Er, neither had I. Each site only has one policy file. I just want it
named after the actual site, not some generic name like Policy. I
think policy files are inherently
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:04:33PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
messages not unlike:
Larry Wall wrote:
[wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6]
In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare
exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that
we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce Standard Perl 6.
Larry
As a member of a
At 04:19 PM 4/26/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program
: essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out
: reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today,
: but
At 09:16 AM 4/27/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
[wrt multiple syntaxes for Perl 6]
In any event, I'm not worried about it, as long as people predeclare
exactly which variant they're using. And I'm also not worried that
we'll have any lack of style police trying to enforce
Dan Sugalski writes:
: It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of
: some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it.
: I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in.
: Rather having use site_policy; set limits that
Larry Wall wrote:
On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're
going to speak in before they start speaking.
On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy
of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what
a pragma is. Even my could be
John Porter writes:
: Larry Wall wrote:
: On the other hand, people don't generally declare which dialect they're
: going to speak in before they start speaking.
:
: On the other other hand, perl already embraces the philosophy
: of pre-declaring things that change the language. That's what
At 01:16 PM 4/27/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: It's also the one reason that I really like the idea of policy files of
: some sort, to allow sites that don't want this sort of thing to forbid it.
: I'm not talking things like perl automagically loading policy files in.
:
Dan Sugalski writes:
: Besides, having the site administrator forbid the installation of parser
: tweaks might not be what is wanted. If we get PPython in there, a site may
: well have a Python.pm module handy, and source might start:
:
:use site_policy qw(Python);
:
: for modules that
Eric Roode writes:
: John Porter wrote:
: IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
:
: I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down tighter that almost any
language that ever existed.
: Super-flexible,
Dan Sugalski writes:
: And on the other hand you have things like Forth where every program
: essentially defines its own variant of the language, and that works out
: reasonably well. (Granted it's more of a niche language, especially today,
: but that's probably more due to its RPN syntax)
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 04:13:30PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
Eric Roode writes:
: John Porter wrote:
: IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
:
: I may have my history wrong here, but didn't Ada try that?
Not at all. The syntax of Ada was nailed down
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
messages not unlike:
foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and 10.0.16: see the LRM.
Ever used the Mac C compiler?
--
Language shapes
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:28:58AM +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 06:25:03PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
In a sick way I kinda liked how compilers were able to give out error
messages not unlike:
foo.ada: line 231: Violation of sections 7.8.3, 9.11.5b and
At 01:36 PM 4/25/2001 -0400, Eric Roode wrote:
John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The one downside is that you'd have essentially your own private
language.
Whether this is a bad thing or not is a separate issue, of course.
IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying
John Porter wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
The one downside is that you'd have essentially your own private language.
Whether this is a bad thing or not is a separate issue, of course.
IIUC, this ability is precisely what Larry was saying Perl6 would have.
I may have my history wrong here, but
34 matches
Mail list logo