In lists.projects.perl.language, you wrote:
>It's likely to work better in Perl 6. To mean what it currently
>means, you'll probably have to write something like:
>
>@foo[0] := ;
>
>The colon here is not functioning merely to make the assignment look
>like Pascal. It means, in this case,
At 06:40 PM 4/24/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > [BTW, was this meant to be CC'd to one of the perl 6 lists? My copy wasn't]
>
>yeah, I have perl6-language as a alias but not "language" by itself
Fixed.
> > At 05:55 PM 4/24/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
> > >Da
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> Most of the parser switching is going to be of the nesting variety. Every
> time the parser processes a double-quoted string constant or a regular
> expression you're going to be jumping parsers. That's all temporary, and we
> really do want them to nest. (You really don't w
At 08:01 PM 4/23/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Larry Wall wrote:
> >
> > David L. Nicol writes:
> > :
> > : [this parser switch thing]
> > : sounds a lot like an "exec" system call: there are some things
> > : which remain in effect (open file handles, current directory,
> > : environment) bu
Why would it?
Someone posited a nested stack of parsers, this thread is discussing the
abandonment of one parser when going to the next. Really, the claim
that it should be up to the invoked parser to determine where to go next
allows the invoked parser to have syntax to return to the prior par
Brent Dax wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what I had in mind, thanks for
the validation. Only the comment syntax would have to
come back to a designated module, with another hashbang.
#!comment
yadda yadda yadda
blah blah blah
foo bar baz
#!VB6
f
> What I see as needed is a designated meta-token that will be
reserved, in some form or another, as the switch-parser command.
.
.
.
> What about a hash-bang? Maybe putting a hash-bang in the middle
of the text (outside of quoted literals, of course) could indicate
that the referenced program is
Larry Wall wrote:
>
> David L. Nicol writes:
> :
> : [this parser switch thing]
> : sounds a lot like an "exec" system call: there are some things
> : which remain in effect (open file handles, current directory,
> : environment) but there are many others which do not. Maybe
> : switching parser
David L. Nicol writes:
: Dan Sugalski wrote:
: > I'm not a parser guy by any means (unfortunately) but we have
: > the distinct possibility of completely replacing all of the
: > parser rules after token X appears, whatever that token might
: > be. (Heck, we may have the possibility of replacing t
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I'm not a parser guy by any means (unfortunately) but we have
> the distinct possibility of completely replacing all of the
> parser rules after token X appears, whatever that token might
> be. (Heck, we may have the possibility of replacing the entire
> parser) There's no g
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 12:17 AM 4/20/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
: >Recursive parsing is not needed. We have the HERE string, which can
: > include anything in with the rest of the code, by looking for the
: > end-token. The perl5 Inline module works that way.
Indeed, Perl 5 works th
At 12:17 AM 4/20/2001 -0500, David L. Nicol wrote:
>Simon Cozens wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:39:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > [We have FOO:BAR]
> > > While this is reasonably true (and reasonably reasonable) it's not
> entirely
> > > to the point. If we're going to provide a
Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:39:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > [We have FOO:BAR]
> > While this is reasonably true (and reasonably reasonable) it's not entirely
> > to the point. If we're going to provide a mechanism to define the syntax of
> > a mini-language (or a max
On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Tim Bunce wrote:
[...]
> That beautiful code will be beautifully _open_ to _external_ extensions.
> And that is how I imagine that Perl 5 support should be implemented.
Exactly. I am pretty sure that already at the meeting in Monterey
someone suggested that Perl5 should be
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:23:56AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Tim Bunce wrote:
> > If the file doesn't start with Perl 6 thingy then
> > it's Perl 5. Period.
>
> To mandate the impossible is to mandate failure.
>
> "Nothing can parse perl like Perl."
>
> Why is that?
Because perl has a bunch
Dan Sugalski writes:
: At 10:16 AM 4/17/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
: >On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
: > > People seem to think that telling Perl 5 apart from Perl 6 is trivial.
: >
: >My reading of Larry's comments is that it will be _made_ trivial at the
: >
> > > The
> > > timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
> > > encountered in the open software arena.
> >
> > Ditto for HP.
>
> Which is more extreme (HP9000/L1000, HP-UX 11.00 + March 2001 patches):
>
> % /usr/contrib/bin/perl -v
>
> This is perl, version 4.0
>
At 10:16 AM 4/17/2001 +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> > People seem to think that telling Perl 5 apart from Perl 6 is trivial.
>
>My reading of Larry's comments is that it will be _made_ trivial at the
>file scope level. If the file doe
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:23:56AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> "Nothing can parse perl like Perl."
Just saying it doesn't make it true, you know.
--
Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum.
-- D. Gries
Tim Bunce wrote:
> If the file doesn't start with Perl 6 thingy then
> it's Perl 5. Period.
To mandate the impossible is to mandate failure.
"Nothing can parse perl like Perl."
Why is that?
> My reading of Larry's comments is that it won't be "in" our "new
> beautiful code". [Umm, pride bef
On Mon, 16 Apr 2001 10:29:41 PDT, Jeff Okamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The
> > timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
> > encountered in the open software arena.
>
> Ditto for HP.
Which is more extreme (HP9000/L1000, HP-UX 11.00 + March 2001 patches):
% /u
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:49:07PM -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> I don't get it.
>
> The first and foremost duty of Perl 6 is to parse and execute Perl 6.
> If it doesn't, it's not Perl 6. I will call this the Prime Directive.
Great, but don't loose sight of the fact that a key feature of "
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 03:23:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> >Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
> >contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
>
> This is what I've been arguing a
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:19:38PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> Er, I don't get it. I'm proposing that if perl 6 determines it's been
> given perl 5 code, it does "exec perl5 $0". So thereafter it's as though
> perl 6 never existed as far as that code is concerned; whatever it wants to
> do sh
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> We have been stuck in a sort of Gilbert and Sullivan debate,
DS> haven't we? Silly, definitely silly.
o/' perl6 is the very model of a modern major interpreter o/'
:-)
uri
--
Uri Guttman - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
At 02:49 PM 4/16/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>Thinking about the 5->6 migration and coexistence is good and useful,
>but since that doesn't advance the Prime Directive, thinking about it
>*too* much now or fighting over the niggly details is somewhat wasted
>effort.
We have been stuck in
I don't get it.
The first and foremost duty of Perl 6 is to parse and execute Perl 6.
If it doesn't, it's not Perl 6. I will call this the Prime Directive.
I think as the first approximation the implementation of Perl 6 should
get that "simple" task right. If it doesn't, all our talk and work
Dan Sugalski wrote
> At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should
> > be able to contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me
> > strange palpitations.
>
> This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand
> (and
At 12:19 PM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>Or were you espousing the notion that perl 6 programs should be able to
>contain sections of perl 5 code? That gives me strange palpitations.
This is what I've been arguing against. Unless I misunderstand (and it
wouldn't be the first time... :)
At 02:33 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>>As a very low-tech solution, why not bundle perl 5 *with* perl 6 so that
>>once perl 6 detects that it's been fed perl 5 code, it can send it to the
>>perl 5 compiler/interpreter.
>
>Besides the si
At 11:50 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > Besides the size and clunkiness issues, there's another problem. String
> > evals in a perl 5 section of code will expect to be parsed as perl 5, which
> > kinda precludes the whole "compile perl 5 to bytecode and pass i
Michael G Schwern wrote:
> It is a servicable solution, just be ready for the extra problems.
I like it; it seems to raise far fewer problems than it solves.
In particular, it solves all the very thorny issues Dan enumerated.
--
John Porter
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 09:58:05AM -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> Name tricks are ugly, but useful. Perhaps the best solution would
> be to call the new interpreter perl6. If it finds itself being
> called 'perl' or 'perl5' then it should assume perl 5 code
I just worry about users not being awa
Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> Besides the size and clunkiness issues, there's another problem. String
> evals in a perl 5 section of code will expect to be parsed as perl 5, which
> kinda precludes the whole "compile perl 5 to bytecode and pass it through
> the p526 converter" solution. Makes mixing an
At 09:47 AM 4/16/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
>>
>>*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
>>*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
>>*) It complicates the in
> The
> timescales of corporations like Sun are not the same as those commonly
> encountered in the open software arena.
Ditto for HP.
Jeff
At 05:34 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >*cough*
> > s/parse/interpret/;
>
>Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
>especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
>for
At 12:11 PM 4/16/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>There are a number of reasons to *not* claim to parse perl 5 code.
>
>*) We won't load any perl 5 XS code
>*) We won't be getting the corner cases, and perl5 has a *lot*.
>*) It complicates the interpreter if we need to add code to support things
>t
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >*cough*
> s/parse/interpret/;
Seems a bit of a shame to parse it and then not do anything with it,
especially if we're trying to push Perl 6 as a common language runtime
for running all sorts of bytecode-compiled languages. :)
--
At 05:20 PM 4/16/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
> > >unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
>^^^
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:11:41PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >I hereby declare that a package declaration at the front of a file
> >unambiguously indicates you are parsing Perl 5 code.
^^^
> Grand. To play devil's advocate here for a moment, t
At 02:58 PM 4/15/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:39:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
> > >figure out what's being fed?
> >
> > Why?
>
>i) To make things easier for the programmer. (That's kinda
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:39:55AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
> >figure out what's being fed?
>
> Why?
i) To make things easier for the programmer. (That's kinda the point of
Perl.)
ii) Because Larry said so, *and* decl
I normally just lurk, but...
>
> Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why? We don't ask this of any other compiler, so why ask it of perl?
> > (You won't find this in a C, or Fortran, or Ada compiler...)
>
> Yes, but my compiled C binaries in /usr/bin don't break when I upgrade
> gcc.
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
> Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
> completely rejected 5.6, as I discovered last night,
This is quite unfair. Sun has supported perl nicely and Sun employees
have actively contributed to 5.6.0 and beyond. That Sola
On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 05:15:51PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> The analogous situation with p4->p5 wasn't so bad.
> People just kept their p4 binaries around for running
> those old scripts. No biggie.
Uggg. Do you remember how long it took FreeBSD to change
/usr/bin/perl from perl4 to perl5?
John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Piers Cawley wrote:
>> Unless you can get at every single one of those and add a '-M5' switch,
>> then they aren't going to work. Which could be very bad indeed.
> The analogous situation with p4->p5 wasn't so bad. People just kept
> their p4 binaries a
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Unless
> you can get at every single one of those and add a '-M5' switch, then
> they aren't going to work. Which could be very bad indeed.
The analogous situation with p4->p5 wasn't so bad.
People just kept their p4 binaries around for running
those old scripts. No biggie.
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why? We don't ask this of any other compiler, so why ask it of perl?
> (You won't find this in a C, or Fortran, or Ada compiler...)
Yes, but my compiled C binaries in /usr/bin don't break when I upgrade
gcc. A binary is largely independent of its compil
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:23 PM 4/13/2001 -0700, jc vazquez wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > We could then just add a -7 flag.
> > >
> > > Or, just use:
> > >
> > > #!/usr/bin/perl6
> > >
> >
> >To solve this versioning issue, is there
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, David Grove wrote:
> The Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the
> vast majority using it at all.
Since when?
> Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have completely rejected
> 5.6, as I discovered last night, and I'd imagine that there are mor
Given that Perl 5 internals post 5.004 caused the need for a rewrite
anyway, I'd imagine that this would be a particularly horrid idea. The
Perl 5 path is almost dead: adventurers and Win32 users are the vast
majority using it at all. Add Solaris 8 1/01 to the list of OS's that have
completely rej
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:11:12PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave
> > > the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5.
> >
> > FWIW, I agre
On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 12:11:12PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave
> > the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5.
>
> FWIW, I agree 100% with Dan.
I'm curious to see how mutt will han
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> I personally would rather that perl 6 handle perl 6 code only, and leave
> the compilation and interpretation of perl 5 code to perl 5.
FWIW, I agree 100% with Dan.
--
John Porter
At 08:23 PM 4/13/2001 -0700, jc vazquez wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> > ...
> > > We could then just add a -7 flag.
> >
> > Or, just use:
> >
> > #!/usr/bin/perl6
> >
>
>To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
>figure out what's being fed? I
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> ...
> > We could then just add a -7 flag.
>
> Or, just use:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl6
>
To solve this versioning issue, is there a way Perl 6 compiler can just
figure out what's being fed? I mean, without saying anything using options
or pragmas. There must
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
>
> > At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
> > >
> > >One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
> > >the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
> > >
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 06:02:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> D'oh! I was thinking more along the lines of:
>
>START(FORTH) {
> $baz $foo $bar + =
>}
>
> where the entire parser was coopted. I wasn't considering the smaller (and
> probably more common) case where only a tiny piec
At 10:48 PM 4/12/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:39:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > [We have FOO:BAR]
> > While this is reasonably true (and reasonably reasonable) it's not
> entirely
> > to the point. If we're going to provide a mechanism to define the
> syntax o
Dan Sugalski writes:
: If we're going to provide a mechanism to define the syntax of
: a mini-language (or a maxi one, I suppose, though there are probably better
: ways to do it) then the details of colons and constants and what-have-yous
: are pretty close to irrelevant.
I expect that most o
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 05:39:12PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> [We have FOO:BAR]
> While this is reasonably true (and reasonably reasonable) it's not entirely
> to the point. If we're going to provide a mechanism to define the syntax of
> a mini-language (or a maxi one, I suppose, though there
At 02:14 PM 4/12/2001 -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
>David Whipp writes:
>: You may be right that there are no useful literals other than
>: strings, integers, reals and lists. OTOH, if we are going to
>: construct a meta-language which supports multiple syntaxes,
>: then it is very likely that each ap
David Whipp writes:
: You may be right that there are no useful literals other than
: strings, integers, reals and lists. OTOH, if we are going to
: construct a meta-language which supports multiple syntaxes,
: then it is very likely that each application-specific language
: would have its own lit
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Dave Storrs wrote:
> We could then just add a -7 flag. That's not necessarily bad;
> Perl 7 will probably face the same issue...it needs to be able to eat Perl
> [567] code without barfing, but it needs to know what it's getting. Also,
> the flag would be a good cho
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
> At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
> >
> >One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
> >the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
> >the very least, I want a short flag!
>
> But by the
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 4/6/2001 +0100, Richard Proctor wrote:
> >On Fri 06 Apr, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > This is, I presume, in addition to any sort of inherent DWIMmery? I
don't
> > > see any reason that:
> > >
> > > @foo[1,2] = ;
> > >
> > > shouldn't read just two lines from tha
Damian Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Of course all of this has been discussed. (See
>> http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language-io%40perl.org/,
>> especially RFCs 100 and 14.)
>
> And is already available in a nearby parallel dimension:
Greg Boug wrote:
> use lib "CPAN::HTML::Module";
> which goes and grabs the module in question from CPAN for
> use. Picking, the closest mirror, of course.
We should not attempt to resurrect this poor dead horse,
only to beat it to death again. See the perl6-language archives.
> you could ope
At 09:45 AM 4/11/01 +1000, Greg Boug wrote:
>Hrmm... It'd have interesting repercussions for CPAN... :-)
>
>How about doing something like:
>
>use lib "CPAN::HTML::Module";
>
>which goes and grabs the module in question from CPAN for
>use. Picking, the closest mirror, of course.
>
>Would be inter
> > While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
> >open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
> >while () {
> > print $_;
> >}
> > to dump the HTML for the main page of www.perl.org to get
> dumped to stdout.
>
> Well, this seems innocent enough, but how far
> Of course all of this has been discussed. (See
> http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language-io%40perl.org/,
> especially RFCs 100 and 14.)
And is already available in a nearby parallel dimension:
http://www.yetanother.org/damian/Perl5+i/open.html
;-)
Damian
At 12:36 PM 4/10/2001 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:28:29AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> > Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > > if (-M "http://www.perl.com/" < -M "http://www.python.org/") {...}
> > >
> > > Nope. Doesn't work with other magic filenames, why should it with thes
On Tue, Apr 10, 2001 at 09:28:29AM -0400, John Porter wrote:
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > > if (-M "http://www.perl.com/" < -M "http://www.python.org/") {...}
> >
> > Nope. Doesn't work with other magic filenames, why should it with these?
>
> Because Perl6 will be better than Perl5.
> I wouldn't
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > if (-M "http://www.perl.com/" < -M "http://www.python.org/") {...}
>
> Nope. Doesn't work with other magic filenames, why should it with these?
Because Perl6 will be better than Perl5.
I wouldn't mind (in fact I would expect) to see the magic power
level increase conside
At 09:56 AM 4/10/2001 +1000, Greg Boug wrote:
> > >*knock knock* Hello? Abstraction? Are you there
> > Don't forget that human language expresses concrete things as
> > much or more than it does abstract things. Perl is at least
> > partially a human language.
>
>True... But the ability to say
At 04:23 AM 4/10/2001 -0400, Philip Newton wrote:
>I once created, on a Unix box, a directory named 'http:' and inside it, a
>file named www.datenrevision.de. This enabled me to open
>'http://www.datenrevision.de' and read from it (since multiple
>consecutive slashes are generally treated as one s
At 05:14 PM 4/9/2001 -0700, jc vazquez wrote:
>From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
> >
> >open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
> >while () {
> > print $_;
> >}
> >
> > to dump the HTML for the main page
At 01:46 PM 4/10/2001 +0200, Trond Michelsen wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:03:31AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
> >open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
> >while () {
> > print $_;
> >}
> > to dump the HTM
Trond Michelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:03:31AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
> >open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
> >while () {
> > print $_;
> >}
> > to dump the HTML for
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 10:03:31AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
>open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
>while () {
> print $_;
>}
> to dump the HTML for the main page of www.perl.org to get dumped to stdout.
Wel
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
>
>open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
>while () {
> print $_;
>}
>
> to dump the HTML for the main page of www.perl.org to get dumped to stdout.
I once created, on
At 11:39 AM 4/10/2001 +1000, Damian Conway wrote:
>> Of course all of this has been discussed. (See
>> http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language-io%40perl.org/,
>> especially RFCs 100 and 14.)
>
>And is already available in a nearby parallel dimension:
>
> http://www.yetanot
"Greg Boug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So open has to parse the string for a URL and magically use
> a http protocol? Not sure I like that idea... Granted, from a
> programmatical point of view that looks neater... But what
> about the case where you have a file called "http:" (a legal
> fi
From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> While I don't know if Larry will mandate it, I would like this code:
>
>open PAGE, "http://www.perl.org";
>while () {
> print $_;
>}
>
> to dump the HTML for the main page of www.perl.org to get dumped to
stdout.
>
Now I would like t
> >The same is true for anything... Sometimes a minimalist approach
> >is the right way to do it... The problem is to make sure when
> >using a minimalist approach that you don't make it too small...
> I think the more important thing is to not add completely redundant
> features without a really
On Mon, Apr 09, 2001 at 12:58:23PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> Let's leave -e alone for now and worry about handling specific
> incompatibilities when we in fact have some specific incompatibilities to
> worry about.
Amen.
Tim.
John Porter wrote
> > I'm sure you don't want to write "$a = new Integer '32'".
>
> Of course. That would be unbearably absurd.
> But how often do you have to write expressions that
> operate on three or more URLs? Or even two?
> How many perl instrinsics return URLs? How many
> perl intrinsics
At 12:31 PM 4/9/2001 -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > There won't be any magic toggles to make typeglobs come back if they go
> > away, or anything of that sort. Default behaviours like warning and
> > strictness may vary depending on whether perl thinks it's parsing a module
> > specifically written f
> There won't be any magic toggles to make typeglobs come back if they go
> away, or anything of that sort. Default behaviours like warning and
> strictness may vary depending on whether perl thinks it's parsing a module
> specifically written for perl 6 or not, but that's a far cry from parsin
At 12:02 PM 4/9/2001 -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > Still, I'll be really, *really* surprised if most perl code require any
> > rewriting to run under perl 6. TomC's got quite a cache of old perl code,
> > and I've got some mildly hairy perl 5 code that I want perl 6 to eat
> > without complaint.
>
>
> Still, I'll be really, *really* surprised if most perl code require any
> rewriting to run under perl 6. TomC's got quite a cache of old perl code,
> and I've got some mildly hairy perl 5 code that I want perl 6 to eat
> without complaint.
OK. But by the current thread, this ability of perl6
At 11:16 AM 4/9/2001 -0600, Dan Brian wrote:
> > This one here's been bugging me for a bit. Larry never said that perl 6
> > would assume its input code was perl 5. Perl 6 will always assume its
> input
> > is perl 6. The said (and I'm still trying to dig up the quote) is that
> > we'll be enabli
> This one here's been bugging me for a bit. Larry never said that perl 6
> would assume its input code was perl 5. Perl 6 will always assume its input
> is perl 6. The said (and I'm still trying to dig up the quote) is that
> we'll be enabling warnings and strict by default (as opposed to the
> >I'm still trying to figure out why the flag needs to change. What's wrong
> >with -e? It seems perfectly serviceable.
>
> Because Larry said that by default Perl 6 would assume that its input was
> in Perl 5...? So we need a way to tell it that it isn't.
This one here's been bugging me f
At 09:48 AM 4/9/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 12:38 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
the very least, I want a short flag!
>>>
>>>But by th
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
> >I'm still trying to figure out why the flag needs to change. What's wrong
> >with -e? It seems perfectly serviceable.
>
> Because Larry said that by default Perl 6 would assume that its input was
> in Perl 5...? So we need a way to tell it that it isn
On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Peter Scott wrote:
[ -e vs. --cmd vs. -6]
> Whatever we come up with, let's figure out how to avoid having to change it
> the next time we change Perl.
I don't think this is getting us anywhere useful.
What happens if perl7 is sufficiently different from perl6 in such a wa
At 12:38 PM 4/9/01 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>>>One liners are supposed to be SHORT. `--cmd' is LONG. If we MUST go
>>>the multiflagged way, why not reflect `-e' to get the `-6' flag? At
>>>the very least, I want a short flag!
>>
>>But by the time people learned to use '-6' we'd have Perl 7 ou
At 09:35 AM 4/9/2001 -0700, Peter Scott wrote:
>At 09:36 AM 4/9/01 +0200, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
>> > > Hmm... programs that have perl one-liners inside them might be
>> > > troublesome.
>> >
>> > Why not:
>> >
>> > perl -e 'perl 5 one-liner'
>> >
>> > perl --cmd 'perl 6 one-liner'
>> >
>> > i.e.
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
