> "Steffen" == Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steffen> Okay, I admit to have relied on an overgeneralized interpretation of
Steffen> Randal's post about closures being a problem for B::Deparse.
Steffen> I *do*, however, remember B::Deparse failing to deparse some entries
Steffen>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 05:31:35PM -0700, Scott Wiersdorf wrote:
> FWPers,
>
> Pretending your machine did not have e?grep, how concisely could you
> duplicate the GNUish "-q" (silent) functionality: stop scanning on
> first match and exit(0). If no match, exit(1).
>
> Extra Credit:
>
> - is the
FWPers,
Pretending your machine did not have e?grep, how concisely could you
duplicate the GNUish "-q" (silent) functionality: stop scanning on
first match and exit(0). If no match, exit(1).
Here's something simple to start with:
perl -n0777
exit !(/pattern/)
Necessary Improvements:
- concisel
On Dec 12, Abigail said:
>On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 12:48:11AM -0500, Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan wrote:
>> On Dec 12, Jonathan E. Paton said:
>>
>> >(my $sql = << '--') =~ s/\A(\s+)(?{$::c = $^N})|^(??{$::c})//gm;
>> >
>> >all over SQL related source code then your head is on the block!
>>
>> While it's co
* Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-13 14:55]:
> Oh no! You mean it'll only work in non-pathological cases?
> That's no good!
Its inability to deparse a closure such that its bound
lexicals and their values can be recreated is sometimes a
serious hindrance. It works well enough and then so
Simon Cozens wrote:
Steffen Mueller:
So any code that uses closures is pathological?
[closure being deparsed]
Nope, seems not.
Okay, I admit to have relied on an overgeneralized interpretation of
Randal's post about closures being a problem for B::Deparse.
I *do*, however, remember B::De
Steffen Mueller:
> Okay, I read up on it, but:
> "You are expected to have read the Perl and XS sources to this module
> before attempting to do anything with it."
>
> I cannot read XS :)
Yeah, it was just a long-term plot to sell more books.
--
IBM:
It may be slow, but it's hard to us
Simon Cozens wrote:
Steffen Mueller:
I've been wondering whether it is possible to implement some kind of
mechanism that allows a Perl script to modify itself at runtime.
B::Generate's been doing this for ages.
Okay, I read up on it, but:
"You are expected to have read the Perl and XS sourc
Steffen Mueller:
> So any code that uses closures is pathological?
Hmm, let's see:
perl -MO=Deparse -e 'my $x; {my $foo = "Hello!"; $x=sub{print $foo};}; $x->()'
my $x;
{
my $foo = 'Hello!';
$x = sub {
print $foo;
}
;
}
&$x();
Nope, seems not.
--
I detest people who
Simon Cozens wrote:
Randal L. Schwartz:
"Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Using B::Deparse you can get the source of any running subroutine.
Nope, I've given examples of subroutines that cannot currently be
accurately deparsed.
Oh no! You mean it'll only w
> "Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Nope, I've given examples of subroutines that cannot currently be
>> accurately deparsed.
Michael> Because of the nature of Perl or because of a mistake in B::Deparse?
Not completely sure. The problem is closures, because you e
Randal L. Schwartz:
> > "Michael" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael> Using B::Deparse you can get the source of any running subroutine.
>
> Nope, I've given examples of subroutines that cannot currently be
> accurately deparsed.
Oh no! You mean it'll only work in non-
12 matches
Mail list logo
