On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:43:24PM +0000, Piers Cawley wrote:
> > What's left?
>
> What about begin blocks with side effects. How do you propose
> detecting the side effects. How do you deal with things that may
> dispatch to different subroutines depending on when they are
> evaluated? How do you deal with arrays getting initialised (and
> possible extended) twice? How, in short do you solve the halting
> problem?
A scene from Perl: The Gathering.
Piers has played the Halting Problem card your thread!
Schwern counters by taping Hitler and playing two Befuddled
Innocence cards!
;)
I don't understand. Why do we have to deal with them? Just translate
the Perl code in the BEGIN block to C <hand wave>, dump it and make
sure it gets run first. Right?
I think I'm missing something very vital here.
> The point is that even B::Deparse, which tries very hard to get BEGIN
> blocks right, can't do this and, according to the above extract, is
> highly unlikely to do so in the forseeable future.
Like I said, I don't expect perlcc to run perfectly Right Now, but I
do expect this to be considered a bug, not a feature. The upshot of
this is: don't prop up the perlcc tests to shield against this.
That was the original point of this thread. Somebody will come along
and fix it someday. That day might be tommorrow, dunno. Three weeks
ago perlcc was declared indefinitely dead in the water, now its alive
and kicking again. We do impossible things all the time.
--
Michael G. Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/
Perl Quality Assurance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kwalitee Is Job One
grep { ref and ref !~ /^[A-Z]+$/ } kill 9, @ARGV;
