On Wed, Feb 14, 2001 at 10:58:57PM -0500, Steve Simmons wrote:
Note that it may not be possible to satisfy conflicting requests. If
module CA and module CB demand two different versions of the same
module CC, the compiler should halt and state the module conflicts.
Pardon me for
Paul Johnson wrote:
Note that it may not be possible to satisfy conflicting requests.
If
module CA and module CB demand two different versions of the
same
module CC, the compiler should halt and state the module
conflicts.
Pardon me for sniping at a great RFC, but I already
Paul Johnson wrote:
Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or whatever
its replacement is?
Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Steve Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Johnson wrote:
Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS code, or
whatever
its replacement is?
Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Simply put (and paraphrastically, so don't nitpick, anyone), XS is using a
funky type of
Many thanks to all for the pointers.
Paul Johnson wrote:
I don't think any proposal of this nature would be conplete without a
consideration of these aspects.
Agreed.
From: Steve Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Paul Johnson wrote:
Has anyone considered the problems associated with XS
code, or whatever its replacement is?
Pardon my ignorance, but what's XS code?
Extra code is. Which knack had you obfuscation
for could left out have been. --Yoda
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:08:01PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Discussion of RFC 271 and 194 on pre and post handlers for subroutines
reminded me of Larry's desire for Perl 6 to support the coexistence of
different versions of modules.
Besides http://dev.perl.org/rfc/78.pod, are there any
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:37:23 -0500, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
from what I remember we discussed
an idea to allow people and organizations to produce their own list of
approved modules.
This is already possible with the CPAN::Site module.
For example, if Oracle had
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas J. Koenig) writes:
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:37:23 -0500, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
from what I remember we discussed
an idea to allow people and organizations to produce their own list of
approved modules.
This is already possible with the
Larry mumbled something like "implements" and "interface". So to say
package Net::FTP::Foo implements Net::FTP;
But I don't think, anybody wrote an RFC about the plan.
I did. Or something like it. And I've got a couple of modules on CPAN
(that I really must document better)
Jarkko Hietaniemi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Larry mumbled something like "implements" and "interface". So to say
package Net::FTP::Foo implements Net::FTP;
But I don't think, anybody wrote an RFC about the plan.
I did. Or something like it. And I've got a couple of
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 02:08:01PM -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote:
Discussion of RFC 271 and 194 on pre and post handlers for subroutines
reminded me of Larry's desire for Perl 6 to support the coexistance of
different versions of modules.
Besides http://dev.perl.org/rfc/78.pod, are there any
12 matches
Mail list logo
