Re: problems with intel architecture

2006-04-04 Thread Cheryl Chase
On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Joel Rees wrote: Even though it's not as necessary as it was when the system perl was at v5.6 and we all wanted the Unicode stuff in v5.8, I'm still inclined to build a separate install of perl for application use. That way I don't have to worry as much about

Re: problems with intel architecture

2006-04-04 Thread Daniel T. Staal
On Tue, April 4, 2006 11:44 am, Cheryl Chase said: Are there OS functions that rely on perl? What sorts of things? Just to answer: yes, there are OS functions that rely on perl. If I was on my Mac I could probably pull up quite a few. One I'm fairly sure that uses perl is installers. (Not

Re: problems with intel architecture

2006-04-04 Thread Sherm Pendley
On Apr 4, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Dominic Dunlop wrote: On 2006–04–04, at 17:44, Cheryl Chase wrote: Are there OS functions that rely on perl? What sorts of things? Yes. Not many, though. You can see what's there if you type $ locate *.pl in a terminal window. That will only show the files

Re: problems with intel architecture

2006-04-04 Thread Sherm Pendley
On Apr 4, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Cheryl Chase wrote: On Apr 3, 2006, at 3:56 PM, Joel Rees wrote: Even though it's not as necessary as it was when the system perl was at v5.6 and we all wanted the Unicode stuff in v5.8, I'm still inclined to build a separate install of perl for application

Re: problems with intel architecture

2006-04-04 Thread Joel Rees
Are there OS functions that rely on perl? What sorts of things? Yes. Not many, though. You can see what's there if you type $ locate *.pl in a terminal window. That will only show the files ending in .pl. Scripts use the #! line to determine the interpreter to run them with, not the

Re: problems with intel architecture

2006-04-04 Thread Joel Rees
Not a one-liner and not even pretty, but since I needed the practice: - #! /usr/bin/perl use File::Find; @l = ( / ); sub w { if ( -d $_ ) { my $dir = $File::Find::dir; if ( system( file * | grep perl ) == 0 ) { print

When does a hash of lists get defined?

2006-04-04 Thread Doug McNutt
While messing with CGI POSTed data I got trapped by this one. Version 5.8.1-RC3 for Mac OS 10.3.9 It appears that the hash element D gets defined in the process of testing to see if an element in the associated string is defined. The last if below takes the else route. Is that normal? Does it

Re: When does a hash of lists get defined?

2006-04-04 Thread Joel Rees
On 2006.4.5, at 09:36 AM, Doug McNutt wrote: While messing with CGI POSTed data I got trapped by this one. Version 5.8.1-RC3 for Mac OS 10.3.9 It appears that the hash element D gets defined in the process of testing to see if an element in the associated string is defined. The last if

File:Find-ing perl stuff on a mac (Re: problems with intel architecture)

2006-04-04 Thread Joel Rees
Hmm. On 2006.4.5, at 08:48 AM, Joel Rees wrote: Not a one-liner and not even pretty, but since I needed the practice: - #! /usr/bin/perl use File::Find; @l = ( / ); sub w { if ( -d $_ ) { my $dir = $File::Find::dir; if ( system( file *

Re: When does a hash of lists get defined?

2006-04-04 Thread Bruce Van Allen
On 4/4/06 Doug McNutt wrote: While messing with CGI POSTed data I got trapped by this one. Version 5.8.1-RC3 for Mac OS 10.3.9 It appears that the hash element D gets defined in the process of testing to see if an element in the associated string is defined. The last if below takes the else

Re: When does a hash of lists get defined?

2006-04-04 Thread Stewart Leicester
... if (! defined $phash{D}) { print \$phash{D} is undefined, We expected that.\n; } Instead of defined $phash{D} use exists $phash{D} This has bitten me before. Stewart -- Stewart Leicester | JenSoft Technologies, LLC Per Ardua Ad Astra | mailto:[EMAIL

Re: When does a hash of lists get defined?

2006-04-04 Thread Bruce Van Allen
On 4/4/06 Stewart Leicester wrote: if (! defined $phash{D}) { print \$phash{D} is undefined, We expected that.\n; } Instead of defined $phash{D} use exists $phash{D} Actually, those mean different things. Neither autovivifies, which was what Doug was seeking to understand.