Trey Harris writes:
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Smylers writes:
Trey Harris writes: T
I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules
floating around that required you to do no strict of various
flavors in order to use them.
Really? How?
I wrote
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Smylers writes:
Trey Harris writes:
I remember not so many years ago when there were a lot of modules
floating around that required you to do no strict of various flavors
in order to use them.
Really? How?
I wrote imprecisely. Not to use them in the
Trey Harris writes:
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always No
library designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast
or strict my program has to run. Whatever BD you do in the
privacy of your own
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:43:04PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:09, jesse wrote:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by person writing the
program and person writing the libraries. In fact, I've _gotta_
be. I'd like to be able to put my strictures in
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 01:04:45PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:48, jesse wrote:
Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of don't let
people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules
but a matter of perl should
chromatic wrote:
jesse wrote:
Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of don't let
people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules
but a matter of perl should always give you enough rope to turn off any
stricture imposed on you by external
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 10:06, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Would there be such tools used in the core libraries? Maybe, maybe not,
we could discuss that. If they were implemented in the core libraries
would there be a universal no bondage flag that shut them off?
Probably, since that's something
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, chromatic writes:
The assumption I remember from the design meetings was always No library
designer has the knowledge or the right to tell me how fast or strict my
program has to run. Whatever BD you do in the privacy of your own modules
is fine, but if it
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:50:16AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 10:06, Aaron Sherman wrote:
Would there be such tools used in the core libraries? Maybe, maybe not,
we could discuss that. If they were implemented in the core libraries
would there be a universal no
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 01:05, jesse wrote:
One of the things that many shops have defected from Perl to Java for
is the additional handcuffs that Java provides for less-than-experienced
developers. Giving me the power to control what my team, or folks using
my language variant, do
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:09, jesse wrote:
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by person writing the
program and person writing the libraries. In fact, I've _gotta_
be. I'd like to be able to put my strictures in a library rather than
forcing them into the main body of a
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:48, jesse wrote:
Ok. So, I think what you're saying is that it's not a matter of don't let
people write libraries that add strictures to code that uses those modules
but a matter of perl should always give you enough rope to turn off any
stricture imposed on
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:01:22PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 01:05, jesse wrote:
One of the things that many shops have defected from Perl to Java for
is the additional handcuffs that Java provides for less-than-experienced
developers. Giving me the power to
In a message dated Wed, 4 Oct 2006, jesse writes:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 12:01:22PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
The point is that the person writing the program decides which handcuffs or
costumes all of the code has to wear, not the person writing the libraries.
If you want to set a policy for
On Wednesday 04 October 2006 13:25, Trey Harris wrote:
I read it as yes, you *can* put strictures on the using code into a
library, though I wouldn't do it and would say that any module that does
so shouldn't be released on CPAN for general use. But even if you can do
that, you *must* always
Trey Harris wrote:
I read it as yes, you *can* put strictures on the using code into a
library, though I wouldn't do it and would say that any module that does
so shouldn't be released on CPAN for general use. ...
Hey, I have an idea. Let's write a module that enforces that!
Seriously, I
chromatic wrote:
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:32, Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
On Oct 2, 2006, at 10:26 AM, jerry gay wrote:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
jerry gay wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
Hmm... granted. But that does tend to sidestep the main
On 2 Oct 2006, at 17:48, Jonathan Lang wrote:
The examples I gave involved specific roles or routines being
forbidden from use in certain situations; my gut instinct is that if
you don't think that it's appropriate to use a particular role or
routine somewhere, you should simply not use it
jerry gay writes:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code.
Is there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
That's different:
Smylers wrote:
use strict;
That's different: it's _you_ that's forbidding things that are otherwise
legal in your code; you can choose whether to do it or not.
Which suggests that the people wanting to specify the restrictions are
actually asking for a way to specify additional strictures
Dave Whipp wrote:
Smylers wrote:
use strict;
That's different: it's _you_ that's forbidding things that are otherwise
legal in your code; you can choose whether to do it or not.
Which suggests that the people wanting to specify the restrictions are
actually asking for a way to specify
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Before we start talking about how such a thing might be implemented,
I'd like to see a solid argument in favor of implementing it at all.
What benefit can be derived by letting a module specify additional
strictures for its users? Ditto for a role placing restrictions on
Dave Whipp wrote:
Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core strict
and warnings modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which core modules can
register module-specific strictures/warnings/diagnostics.
Question: if
Jonathan Lang wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core strict
and warnings modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which core modules can
register module-specific
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:01:34PM -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: Dave Whipp wrote:
: Or we could view it purely in terms of the design of the core strict
: and warnings modules: is it better to implement them as centralised
: rulesets, or as a distributed mechanism by which core modules can
:
On 10/2/06, Jonathan Lang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
This reminds me of the endless student proofs that trisect
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
On 10/2/06, Aaron Sherman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
I'm not used to programming styles where a programmer intentionally
and explicitly forbids the use of otherwise perfectly legal code. Is
there really a market for this sort of thing?
use strict;
you're so twelve
31 matches
Mail list logo
