"Drieux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Sunday, Sep 14, 2003, at 14:00 US/Pacific, Todd W. wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > Beacuse of @ISA being lexically declared, it can't inherit from other
> > modules. And remember, for a logical scope to be called a closure, you
> >
On Sunday, Sep 14, 2003, at 14:00 US/Pacific, Todd W. wrote:
[..]
Beacuse of @ISA being lexically declared, it can't inherit from other
modules. And remember, for a logical scope to be called a closure, you
have
to be dealing with lexical values.
p0: I knew there was a 'rational' explanation why i
"Drieux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 18:54 US/Pacific, Todd W. wrote:
> [..]
> > I dont think you can call that a closure yet. You would have to be
> > defining
> > subroutines that refer to lexical variables outside of the subroutine
On Friday, Sep 12, 2003, at 18:54 US/Pacific, Todd W. wrote:
[..]
I dont think you can call that a closure yet. You would have to be
defining
subroutines that refer to lexical variables outside of the subroutine
or
something along those lines:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] trwww]$ perl
{
my $dog = 'spot
"Drieux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
This discussion goes along with the one you are having with fliptop.
>
> One of my first question is - why the 'closure' eg:
>
> {
> package FOO;
>
> }
>
> Or is that simply to make 'clear' that outside of
> the Closure
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 at 14:13, drieux opined:
[snip]
d: sub should { defined($REQ_PARAMS->{$_[0]}); }
d:
d: sub doDaemon {
d:
d: }
d: sub kickDaemon { $me=shift; $me->doDaemon(@_); }
d: # the synonym trick...
d:
d:Which still gives me a HASH to m
On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 12:17 US/Pacific, fliptop wrote:
[..]
the way i do it is to assign an action to each form. each action has
associated parameters. the form sends the action in an tag.
oh yes, in this case the 'trigger' I use in say
This way we do not have to have 'one cgi script
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 at 07:55, drieux opined:
d:simply because
d:
d: $obj->can($do);
d:
d:does not mean
d:
d: $obj->should($do);
d:
d:The problem I am looking for in my should() method
d:is a programatic way to solve Which Method to invoke
d:the correct sub to deal with a query string. I
On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 05:51 US/Pacific, fliptop wrote:
[..]
drieux - since no one has responded, i'll take a stab at some of the
issues you bring up.
[..]
Thanks for the feed back.
In the code that I implemented, I did not use the Closure
to 'wrap' my Package - but I think as a 'GP safety
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 at 15:36, drieux opined:
drieux - since no one has responded, i'll take a stab at some of the
issues you bring up.
d:One of my first question is - why the 'closure' eg:
d:
d:{
d: package FOO;
d:
d:}
d:
d:Or is that simply to make 'clear' that outside of
d:the Cl
Currently I am in the midst of an argument
with myself about tactics and strategies
for doing CGI coding. The side effect of
which lead me to wonder about some prejudices
I seem to have about when, where and how to
cut over to using/creating a Perl Module for
code re-use. Some of this comes from de
11 matches
Mail list logo
