http://www.unixreview.com/documents/s=1780/urm0111h/0111h.htm
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have
x27;s like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
00&sln=-71.049600&mag=9&cs=9&name=Boston.com
(barring word-wrap)
And yes, we'll have details of how to get the current parrot source
yourself next monday, so you can play along at home! :)
Dan
---
d Chip's okay to close the Topaz list. I don't know what he
>would like to do with it.
Is Chip back from Saturn, then? :)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
on to flip people out...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:51 PM 5/16/2001 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > People think they *must* know all the core bits of a language, and they
> > think that consists of all the stuff we ship with perl. (And, let's face
> > it, we ship a *lot* of stuff with
t. (Well, OK, there's the speed thing--perl is slowing down) It's
all perception...
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bits.
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
eed a perlquick.pod or something that just runs
through the amount of perl you need to do simple filter & file processing
tasks.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 02:58 PM 5/10/2001 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>* Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/10/2001 14:18]:
> > >
> > >Perl 6 *will* provide a backwards compatible Perl 5 parser. The
> > >details are not nailed down, but this definately will happen.
> >
>
"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
uments that build on
a foundation that doesn't actually exist may not be the most productive use
of your time. It would really suck to spend days on something that turns
out to be unimplementable or meaningless because the design decisions it
was based on were faulty.
the internet hasn't collapsed yet, Infinite Monkeys protocol or not.
> > If you want to contribute, patch bleadperl, or make a contribution
> > on what we're doing today.
>
>Ok, you are on. I'll write up my 30 ideas, and you'll accept them as PDDs
At 04:01 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > I've been thinking since I sent my last mail on this that we might
> actually
> > want to leave the two (PDD & RFC) separate. Keep on with the RFCs for
> > 'external
At 04:43 PM 2/20/2001 -0600, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 02:43:14PM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > At 05:30 PM 2/20/01 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > >At 02:15 PM 2/20/2001 -0700, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > >>Bryan C. Warnock writes:
> >
At 02:38 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > > > Ask, all, are we reusing perl6-rfc as the submittal address, or
> will there
> > > > be a new one (perl-pdd)?
> > >
> > >I'm in fav
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 01:36 PM 2/20/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:38:03PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 07:20 PM 2/19/2001 -0800, Edward Peschko wrote:
> > >RFC 362
> > >---
> > >
> > >=head1 TITLE
> > >
> > >Th
at perl 6 corresponds to 4'33"? (If I have the composers
right...)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 01:05 PM 2/20/2001 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Tuesday 20 February 2001 11:22, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > D'oh! Yes, mark it as Approved, or whichever step is past developing.
>(I'm
> > a little scattered at the moment, so I don't have the doc handy
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
t another
go-round of intellectual masturbation. (and we *really* don't need to go
there...) Yeah, it means the process will be bursty, but that's just the
nature of the beast.
Dan
------"it's like this&qu
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
gn if you're building one of those Cathedral
thingies, and we all know how bad those are. (If you need to reach higher,
the correct method is, of course, to add another layer of tents on top of
the previous one)
Dan
At 03:08 PM 12/6/00 -0500, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Well, until Larry releases the spec, just about everything else is frozen,
> > though we can certainly expand the PDD stuff to include the standard
> > library, documentation, an
g up on the active RFC range)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/12/06/bad_computers/index.html
And no, open source software is *not* immune.
Dan
--"it's like this"-------
Dan Sugalski even
to try, too, but they're a bit politically incorrect to
>mention in this context :-/
Who on earth would be considered politically incorrect in this context?
Dan
----------"it's like this"-
you can't contribute. (This is the generic rather than
specific 'you' here) A good working knowledge of, say, the properties of
complex numbers is as important as knowledge of the guts when building the
complex number class.
Or, to use the building analogy, you don't
he building. A more appropriate analogy is
one where you walk into the architect's conference room and start
commenting on and fiddling with the design of the building. While the sign
says "Open Meeting", the expectation is that you're competent in the areas
At 02:45 PM 11/17/00 +, David Grove wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > At 10:19 AM 11/17/00 -0800, Ken Fox wrote:
> > >However, I don't want to see early (premature) adoption of fundamental
> > >pieces like the VM or par
differ. Docs that make PDD 'developing' status or better are real design
documents for what'll ultimately be perl 6. Most of the brainstorming work
I'd like left on the mailing lists, or in informational PDDs. (And I'd like
to try and keep those reasonably relevant)
sk is reasonably partitionable, so I don't have nearly the burden of
consolidating things that Larry does at the language level, and what I'm
trying (perhaps clumsily) to do is farm out pieces to people while making
sure we don't start with the sort of mess we have now with perl 5.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
erey Bay Aquarium at the same time... :)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 07:35 AM 11/15/00 +, Mike Lacey wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Dan Sugalski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Nathan Torkington"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
et in touch with either the
correct WG chair or Nat or me, and we'll do our best to hook you up with
someone in a position to make your ideas concrete.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Da
ll be calld when one's seen.
That the language isn't fully defined doesn't mean we can't start parsing
with perl 5 and go from there, but that's a separate issue for a separate
group that's not started yet.
Dan
--
k proceeds)
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
issues do need
direct addressing.
It's also important that everyone involved in the discussion realize that
they may be wrong. (And sometimes wildly wrong)
Dan
--"it's like this"-
uot; is a good third.
Anyone think others are needed?
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 10:42 AM 11/3/00 +, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 10:14:25PM -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Not in the p5p sense, at least. Regardless of the levels of disapproval,
> > generally the disapproval was voiced with at least some courtesy. p5p is
> > rat
t I don't think the separation's made things worse than what
we would've gotten if we hadn't done that.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
rtesy. p5p is
rather less polite about things.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
's too late to be afraid...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
different default optimization levels for
parse-and-go perl and compile-to-bytecode perl.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
>development work in Japanese.]
Nah. Only those newbies that don't speak Japanese. If we wanted to keep the
newbies out we'd write perl 6 in INTERCAL. :-P
Dan
--"it
ing to be written in C#. What it's probably going to do (or at
least have the potential to do) is emit C# code the same way it'll be able
to emit Java bytecode.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
uot;, we get something like:
>
> @foo wa kaite kudasai;
Sounds like a job for Lingua::Nippon. Doesn't Damian have a paper on that?
Dan
------"it's like this"---
y.
Since it's going to be our implementation language, there wouldn't be much
point in writing perl code, now would there? :-P
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski
?
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
o the title.
That second ISBN is the one off the copy I got a month or so ago. Ran ~$80
US, IIRC.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
;s a spotty thing at the
moment. (Soon, though, I hope... :)
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
rises.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ime, and a desire to not appear domineering for offense.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 06:58 PM 10/10/00 -0500, Tad McClellan wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 03:42:48PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > > >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
At 07:09 PM 10/10/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > "General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
> > the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that whole "ruling
> > counci
At 11:12 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 06:01:16PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > "General consensus" is best, but that can't be guaranteed. "Consensus of
> > the ruling council" is more attainable, but there's that who
At 10:48 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 05:40:04PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > You're being too specific. There is no assumption possible that perl
> > developers will do *anything*. Ever. This is a volunteer community. Any
> > other
>place.
What you want isn't currently possible. Period. The only way to make it
even remotely possible is to entrust perl development to some sort of
entity akin to the Apache Software Foundation, and if we do that we will
undoubtedly piss of yet another group of people. (And you'
At 12:31 PM 10/10/00 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dan> A better analogy is that Larry's the Bishop and Chief
> Dan> Architect, while the rest of us are engineers, sectional
>
eone like Graham, Tim, or Alan
might well be able to drop a mail message or six in between other things
while still not having the time (or interest) to sit down and actually
write a chunk of code.
That pretty much leaves us with "wing it" as a methodology, but that's
pr
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
we should *not* do, though, is
make design decisions by vote. It's worse than decisions via committee--at
least those have some hope of being technically sound.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
long as the behaviours of the individual pieces are known when
work starts.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
une from the moritorium.
I'd personally like a license chosen before any code gets written in
earnest, so that might well argue for -license to wrap up before then.
(Whether this is an issue or not is up in the air--it depends on who's
submitting code)
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
anged.
Dan
----------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
nst making changes and reworking things, mind. Just
pointing out that all changes have a cost.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ng the other way.
Dan
------"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
ebuilt binary) And I can imagine how
much fun it must be to get it building on a Cray or OS/390 machine running CMS.
No matter what we choose we're going to come up short.
Dan
--"it's like this"-
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
;it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
At 11:49 AM 9/7/00 -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
>2000-09-06-10:51:35 Dan Sugalski:
> > >Finally, most free software and open source projects have
> > >standardized on CVS. Do we really have a compelling reason to go
> > >against the standard?
> >
> > Perl
At 12:14 AM 9/6/00 -0400, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > The decisions should be based on technical merit and general availability.
>
>I would include "available under a free software license" as part of the
>definition of "general availability
st C compilers are written in C, and if we can
get perl emitting native code...
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
on't see any reason why
we shouldn't use it.
Dan
--"it's like this"---
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
80 matches
Mail list logo
