Re: Progressively Overhauling Documentation
David Green wrote: In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Sherman) wrote: This bit of POD made me think about POD's lack of tabular formatting, a common idiom in technical documentation. I know POD is still in the wings, as it were, but I wanted to say this before I forget /me flings coffee cup against the wall [no, not Larry!]. Has anyone seen Natural Docs? http://www.naturaldocs.org/ Clayton
Re: Auto-install (was autoloaded...)
Branden wrote: > And I'll probably ask you to use another naming/extension, like pp5 (par for > perl 5), so that modules for both versions don't get mixed up (since they'll > be incompatible). That doesn't make sense. Either your script or your archive tool (par, pun, or CPAN or whatever) should know what perl interpreter to use without have to have a .pp5, .pp5.6, .pp5.6.1. The script should 'require 5.6' (and you'll get an error like Perl 5.6 required--this is only version 5.00503, stopped at -e line 1. and your perl interpreter will deal with it. That and/or it would be nice if a metadata document came as a part of the archive that was easy to query for details e.g. par --perl_version my_cool_script.par or from the CPAN shell: CPAN> install my_cool_script.par for 5.6 > Other than that, I believe developping it for Perl 5 is a very good idea, Perl 5 is not dead and will not be for a long, long time. Building it first with perl 5 for perl 5 should be a no brainer. Clayton
Re: Auto-install (was autoloaded...)
Peter Scott wrote: > > Eh? I thought PPM was simply "perl -MCPAN -e install" for Windows users, > pointed to a set of modules which have XS content that they'd had to fiddle > with to port to Win32. Not by far. It is a replacment for CPAN that builds and maintains its own local database of installed modules. >From PPM docs: DESCRIPTION PPM is a group of functions intended to simplify the tasks of locating, installing, upgrading and removing software 'packages'. It can determine if the most recent version of a software package is installed on a system, and can install or upgrade that package from a local or remote host. PPM uses files containing a modified form of the Open Software Distribution (OSD) specification for information about software packages. These description files, which are written in Extensible Markup Language (XML) code, are referred to as 'PPD' files. Information about OSD can be found at the W3C web site (at the time of this writing, http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-OSD.html). The modifications to OSD used by PPM are documented in PPM::ppd. PPD files for packages are generated from POD files using the pod2ppd command. Clayton
Re: RFC 290 (v1) Remove -X
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> =head1 ABSTRACT
>
> File tests (-r/-w/-x/...) made sense when Perl's shellness was an
> attribute. Most new Perl programmers are not coming from a shell
> programming background, and the -X syntax is opaque and bizarre.
> It should be removed.
> is_readable(file) is really -r(file)
If you are proposing complete removal of -X tests (as the RFC title
suggests) then I think the syntax definately needs more discussion.
I liked Nathan's suggestion (quoted below) and I've listed why I
think it's the better syntax.
It:
+ stacks multiple tests quite cleanly without excess verbiage
(if (-e && -T && -s && -x){...} gets a little tedious especially
if you don't use $_)
+ introduces only 1 new keyword ("file" seems bad, but maybe not)
+ does not break the brains of the -X loving crowd (as much)
+ introduce long names for -X haters
e.g. file($file, 'readable,writable,directory');
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>In fact, I'd much rather still a more generic function like 'want' that
>takes a list of things to check:
>
> file($file); # does it exist?
> file($file, 'r'); # is it readable?
> file($file, 'w'); # is it writable?
> file($file, 'd'); # is it a directory?
> file($file, 'wd'); # is it a writable directory?
> file($file, 'dw'); # same thing
>
> Otherwise we run the risk of 200 builtins just to check file types and
> modes on all the different platforms
Clayton
Re: pascal-like "with" was Re: Default filehandles(was Re: command line option: $|++)
Damian Conway wrote: > So C is going to have to do some pretty freaky magic to work out > it should call that sub as part of the C. And call it with a > specifically ordered argument list. Yes, I never said it would work, just that it looked nicer :) > However, your suggestion *did* spark an excellent idea for me to do, > with named placeholders and named subroutine parameters. Many thanks! We're still not even. I got quite a few ideas from your book. Clayton -- Clayton Scott
Re: pascal-like "with" was Re: Default filehandles(was Re: command line option: $|++)
Dave Storrs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, David L. Nicol wrote:
>
> > Anyone for generalizing "select" to a more general "with" keyword
> > which would operate on a limited hash and be syntactic sugar for
> > replacing all appearances of unqualified variables that match
> > the hash's keys with references into it?
> >
> > %record = loadrecord($studentID);
> > with %record {
> > print < > Dear $Name:
> > Your tuition is now due. Please send in a payment
> > of at least $Minumum.
> >
> > SPAM
> >
> > # anyone for having a python-like floating left edge for
> > # retaining indentation of hereis strings?
> >
> > };
This seems less of a leap of logic/faith:
%record = loadrecord($studentID);
with %record {
print <
