sub p{
print "Debug: @_\n";
@_;
};
Solved my problem :)
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> I think [a print() that returns the value of what you
> printed ] is an excellent idea independent of others and should
> probably be RFC'ed separately. Since it d
Jerrad Pierce wrote:
>
> Perl6 does not *have* to break anything, and certainly not everything.
> The prime directive should be not to break things unless necessary.
> Translation should not be a fall-back panacea. And it surely isn't perfect...
Actually, this is false. If Perl 6 worked just like
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> I like very much a print() that returns the value of what you
> printed rather than success. I am always needing to define
> littly intermediate temporaries so I can insert debugging code
> inside huge, tortuous expressions.
I think this is an excellent idea independ
I like very much a print() that returns the value of what you
printed rather than success. I am always needing to define
littly intermediate temporaries so I can insert debugging code
inside huge, tortuous expressions.
I don't know if C(>"print me"<) is it though.
Did you take a look at RFC 6
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:30:09PM -0700, Jon Ericson wrote:
> > Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > >3. Can you support here documents with this syntax?
> >
> > I haven't thought about this yet, but you can always use print.
>
> Should be the same:
>
> ><<'FOO'
>
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> The new C<$DEFIN> accomplishes a similar thing, but with
> input. Currently, the special <> filehandle acts on one of
> two things, either C<@ARGV> or (if C<@ARGV> is
> empty).
This is not strictly true. <> is shorthand for . ARGV is the
special filehandle that ope
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 03:30:09PM -0700, Jon Ericson wrote:
> Nathan Wiger wrote:
> >3. Can you support here documents with this syntax?
>
> I haven't thought about this yet, but you can always use print.
Should be the same:
><<'FOO'
blah
blah
FOO<
> >
>Well, fileobjects are already in Perl 5. Most people just don't use them
>by default. But as TomC pointed out, in Perl 5 you can do this:
> open $fh, "$file";# if 'use FileHandle'
I do use them, occasionally...
>Already. These proposals just make that the default.
No the "default" is what
Well, ok, one "language" is just a subset of the other (guess I didn't
communicate that), but they are still distinct and still cause for
concern.
However, I think that if we're going to write this DFA at all, then the
user SHOULD have the choice of using it for normal regex matchs, by
specify
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> With C<$DEFERR>, all error functions are set to act on it
> instead of C<$STDERR> by default. So, the Perl 6 version
> of the above is replaced by a single, simple line of code
> at the top of your main program:
>
>$DEFERR = $ERRORLOG unless $have_a_tty;
open S
> I vehemently disagree with this filehandle object nonsense.
> This is Perl, not Java, not Python. Everyone together Purrl... :-P
Well, fileobjects are already in Perl 5. Most people just don't use them
by default. But as TomC pointed out, in Perl 5 you can do this:
open $fh, "$file";# i
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> > >"Print this line.\n"<;
>
> Some questions:
>
>1. How do you specify alternate filehandles to output to?
> select() doesn't count for the purposes of this question.
It's a shortcut, not a replacement. Rumors of select's death are
greatly exaggerated.
>
In reply to your message from the not too distant future: next Thursday AD
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-receipt-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: a) Discordia b) none c) what's that?
Content-Typo: gibberish, charset=ascii-art
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:05:33 EDT
From: Jerrad Pierce
>[1] T
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Replace default filehandle/select with $DEFOUT, $DEFERR, $DEFIN
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000
Version: 1
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number
Jon Ericson wrote:
>
> I think this is a little premature. These are Requests For Comments not
> Suggestions To Larry yet. So far, you have been to only person to offer
> constructive criticism on this RFC. I think that it is a very small win
> at the moment, but this is not the RFC's final fo
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 07:39:33 -0700 (PDT), Dave Storrs wrote:
> The idea of having two different regex "languages" in Perl makes
>me very, very nervous. Potential for confusion
It should.
However, I was talking about two different rgex implementations, not two
different languages. I woul
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> We should consider if this *adds value* to Perl 6. If not, we should
> start trimming down some RFC's and retracting them. If this RFC presents
> a significant win, we should keep it. If not (I personally don't see
> one), we should retract it.
>
> I'm not claiming to be aut
17 matches
Mail list logo
