On 2008-10-17, at 02:41, Smylers wrote:
It may be wrong, but Perl behaves consistently with its being true,
and
believing it avoids the surprise that the original hater encountered.
So long as you only ever use Perl.
The original ASCII spec was that a new line should be specified
either
denoted line breaks.
That's actually totally wrong!
(Is being actually totally wrong different from just being wrong?)
It may be wrong, but Perl behaves consistently with its being true, and
believing it avoids the surprise that the original hater encountered.
It's a very misconception, though
/images/0/07/Motivational93.png
2. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/4/4b/Accidentallycoke.jpg
3. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/1/17/Batman24.jpg
4. http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2d/AccidentallyEconomy.jpg
It may be wrong, but Perl behaves
(Is being actually totally wrong different from just being
wrong?)
Yes: what you wrote was wrong on multiple levels and did not
incorporate any individually correct statements.
OK, fair enough!
It's a very misconception, though,
Yes. It's very.
The missing word was common,
* Smylers smyl...@stripey.com [2008-10-17 13:35]:
Did I miss something?
No, just that I when I read it, so I thought I'd highlight
it and perhaps make a few other people as well.
Cheers.
Hehe. By itself that would have worked, it’s just in combination
with the “totally wrong” quibble
Aristotle Pagaltzis writes:
* Aaron Crane hate...@aaroncrane.co.uk [2008-10-11 00:10]:
$ echo z | env LANG=en_GB.utf-8 grep '[A-Z]'
z
Which is why my `.profile` says this:
export LC_ALL=
export LANG=en_US.utf8
export LC_COLLATE=C
export LC_CTYPE=de_DE.utf8
Same
Hi Aaron,
* Aaron Crane a...@aaroncrane.co.uk [2008-10-14 00:20]:
I’m curious to know if there’s a reason you export an empty
`LC_ALL` rather than unsetting it.
if there is, I don’t remember. I think it might have been that
I wasn’t sure how unsetting variables interplays with exporting
them
Juerd Waalboer wrote:
Michael G Schwern skribis 2008-10-11 9:58 (-0400):
So you really believe there's still at least one EBCDIC perl user out there?
Frighteningly enough, yes. Some guys at IBM in China.
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-11/msg00265.html
http
Michael G Schwern skribis 2008-10-11 9:58 (-0400):
So you really believe there's still at least one EBCDIC perl user out there?
Frighteningly enough, yes. Some guys at IBM in China.
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2007-11/msg00265.html
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de
* Joshua Juran jju...@gmail.com [2008-10-11 21:15]:
On Oct 11, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
But `\n` always means *exactly one character* which on ASCII
systems is always `\x0a`.
[citation needed]
#!/usr/bin/perl
foreach ( @ARGV )
{
s{ [\] n }{ \r }gx
Apropos of nothing, I just got a spam for auto insurance and read the
subject line as insurance hates. Yes, I thought, I hate it back.
Joshua Juran writes:
Constructions like [A-Za-z] are non-portable to EBCDIC, since the
alphabetic code points are non-contiguous.
They're also, astonishingly enough, non-portable to POSIXish systems with
ASCII-compatible character sets:
$ echo z | env LANG=en_GB.iso-8859-1 grep '[A-Z]'
$
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:01:21PM +0100, Aaron Crane wrote:
$ echo z | env LANG=en_GB.utf-8 grep '[A-Z]'
z
Yes.
If you want to be sloppy about case in your directory listings, fine.
Breaking a shell script that wants to look at files [A-Z]* but not
[a-z]* is going a bit far.
On 2008-10-11, at 04:02, Roger Burton West wrote:
If you want to be sloppy about case in your directory listings, fine.
Breaking a shell script that wants to look at files [A-Z]* but not
[a-z]* is going a bit far.
Ja. I have often thought that it was hatefully stupid to make the
traditional
Constructions like [A-Za-z] are non-portable to EBCDIC, since the
alphabetic code points are non-contiguous.
As someone already pointed out, not true when talking about Perl: both
the regex character ranges and the tr operator were surgically altered
to run for the hills^Wpresidency
On 2008-10-10, at 13:32, Joshua Juran wrote:
At least Mac OS 9 is ASCII.
I don't recall seeing a symbol in ASCII.
On 2008-10-10 at 21:37 -0500, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-10-10, at 13:32, Joshua Juran wrote:
At least Mac OS 9 is ASCII.
I don't recall seeing a [apple] symbol in ASCII.
*sigh* I can see the Unicode vendor mapping in ROMAN.TXT maps 0xF0 to
U+F8FF and I know that's in the Private Use
* Smylers smyl...@stripey.com [2008-10-10 19:40]:
Which characters? The representation \r denotes a carriage
return, aka character \x0D.
Whereas \n denotes a 'new line', a virtual concept which is
made up of some concept of some combination of line feeds
(\x0A) and carriage returns, in an
* Aristotle Pagaltzis pagalt...@gmx.de [2008-10-11 15:20]:
(I realise I didn't explicitly hate on anything, but if you
don't think the above conglomerate isn't hateful, I can't help
you.)
Also, wetware that can't properly parse or formulate stacked
negations is hateful, but that's off-topic.
, but that just means it's not POSIX. MPW's
shell also uses '∂' (little delta) instead of '\', but that doesn't
imply the former has a code point of \x5c.
Incidentally, Lamp's shell, perl, and compiler all treat \r and \n as
in Unix. This depends on the interpreter, not the OS.
But `\n` always
Darrell Fuhriman writes:
Should getting the actual characters be treated differently from
getting the \r\n representation of those characters?
Which characters? The representation \r denotes a carriage return, aka
character \x0D.
Whereas \n denotes a 'new line', a virtual concept which is
On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 06:31:41PM +0100, Smylers wrote:
It isn't possible to have an 'actual' \n character; all actual
characters will be specific, not conceptual.
EBCDIC has a new line control character distinct from both line
feed and
Joshua Juran skribis 2008-10-10 11:32 (-0700):
Constructions like [A-Za-z] are non-portable to EBCDIC, since the
alphabetic code points are non-contiguous.
Well, that's not true for perl of course, which tries to be smart and
has special cased simple letter ranges.
--
Met vriendelijke groet
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:23:26PM +0200, Juerd Waalboer wrote:
Joshua Juran skribis 2008-10-10 11:32 (-0700):
Constructions like [A-Za-z] are non-portable to EBCDIC, since the
alphabetic code points are non-contiguous.
Well, that's not true for perl of course, which tries to be smart
for perl of course, which tries to be smart and
has special cased simple letter ranges.
I'm sure there's at least one hacker who hates perl for exactly that reason.
So you really believe there's still at least one EBCDIC perl user out there?
:D
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn
the
alphabetic code points are non-contiguous.
Well, that's not true for perl of course, which tries to be smart and
has special cased simple letter ranges.
I'm sure there's at least one hacker who hates perl for exactly that reason.
So you really believe there's still at least one EBCDIC
Abigail skribis 2008-10-10 22:20 (+0200):
I'm sure there's at least one hacker who hates perl for exactly that
reason.
So you really believe there's still at least one EBCDIC perl user out there?
That would assume everyone who hates a piece of software also (still)
uses that software
2008/10/10 Joshua Juran jju...@gmail.com
At least Mac OS 9 is ASCII.
DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!
--
うつつにひとめ
見しごとはあらず
Earle Martin | http://downlode.org/
On Oct 10, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Earle Martin wrote:
2008/10/10 Joshua Juran jju...@gmail.com
At least Mac OS 9 is ASCII.
DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!
Oops, I forgot to add *ducks* to the end. :-)
Josh
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:18:41PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That's all perl. :)
No, it's all you big guy.
PEBKAC.
Ah ah. I wonder what percentage of the subscribers of hates-software are
actually Perl programmers. A good chunk of the posters are, for sure.
Now, of course we
Joshua Juran wrote:
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:55 PM, b...@cpan.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:18:41PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That's all perl. :)
No, it's all you big guy.
PEBKAC.
Ah ah. I wonder what percentage of the subscribers of hates-software are
actually Perl
* b...@cpan.org b...@cpan.org [2008-10-09 00:00]:
Now, of course we hate Perl. We just do it in private. ;-)
Nah, it's more like marriage.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
I know, hating perl -- fish in a barrel. I've been doing a lot more
stuff in ruby lately, but I still like perl for a few things. In this
case, I had a file which had some spurious carriage returns, which I
needed to remove so postgres wouldn't complain about them. As it
happens
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:52:40 -0700, Darrell Fuhriman
darr...@garnix.org wrote:
I know, hating perl -- fish in a barrel. I've been doing a lot more
stuff in ruby lately, but I still like perl for a few things. In this
case, I had a file which had some spurious carriage returns, which I
You *remove* all \r\n, replacing it with nothing
Yes, which is what I wanted. What I didn't want is to remove all
solitary \n, which is what it did.
If I were to have used s/af//, I would not expect it to convert 'wtf'
to 'w', but that's the equivalent of what it did.
Darrell
the equivalent of what it did.
Seems to me to work fine:
$ hexdump -C data
6c 69 6e 65 0d 0a 61 6e 6f 74 68 65 72 0a 74 68 |
line..another.th|
0010 69 72 64 0d 0a 66 6f 75 72 74 68 0a |
ird..fourth.|
001c
$ perl -i.bak -ne 's/\r\n//;print' data
$ hexdump -C
Is that different from what you observed? If so which version of
Perl are you using?
Urrrggh... the problem seems to be coming up because I'm calling it as
a rake task. Rake was converting the \r\n to actual carriage return
+newline in the call to the shell.
ie:
perl -i.bak -ne 's
On 8 Oct 2008, at 18:43, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
Urrrggh... the problem seems to be coming up because I'm calling it
as a rake task. Rake was converting the \r\n to actual carriage
return+newline in the call to the shell.
So you've mainly abandoned Perl for Ruby but you decided to pop
So you've mainly abandoned Perl for Ruby but you decided to pop a
shot at Perl anyway - and it turned out to be Ruby's fault? :)
Well, it's partially my fault for not checking my quoting (hardly
unique to ruby). But why should actual-carriage-return{1}actual-
newline{1} work differently
Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
So you've mainly abandoned Perl for Ruby but you decided to pop a shot
at Perl anyway - and it turned out to be Ruby's fault? :)
Well, it's partially my fault for not checking my quoting (hardly unique
to ruby). But why should actual-carriage-return{1}actual-newline{1
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 10:59 +1300, Tony Bowden wrote:
Martin Ebourne wrote:
Not so unusual really, in the UK postcodes are of the form B27 6EG where
the first part is one or two letters for the local city, and a number
for district (numbered in alphabetical order, except for 1 which is
* Martin Ebourne li...@ebourne.me.uk [2008-01-17T19:50:44]
Sites really shouldn't try to validate this stuff. The most annoying one
of course is the very common mandatory county (as already mentioned on
this thread). At least 7 million people live in London so over 10% of
the population has no
On 2008-01-17, at 19:53, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
Sometimes I get this problem, too. For some reason that I don't
know what it
is, retailers (like Apple) sometimes ask for my county.
Sales tax may vary by county. Of course that's a hate of a different
color.
On 18/01/08 00:50 Martin Ebourne wrote:
Sites really shouldn't try to validate this stuff. The most annoying one
of course is the very common mandatory county (as already mentioned on
this thread). At least 7 million people live in London so over 10% of
the population has no county, not to
Robert Rothenberg writes:
There's no useful reason to ask for the county when you have the city and
postcode.
I briefly made 'County' optional on our address forms. Unfortunately
that broke our customers' abilities to register .uk domains with us --
because while we didn't care about their
!
--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic
In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's ... programs should be
indented six feet downward and covered with dirt.
--Blair P. Houghton
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the third
group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information, because
it's something you have anyway?
Not after
On 2008-01-17, at 11:46, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the
third group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information,
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 03:19:21PM +, David Cantrell wrote:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:03, David Cantrell wrote:
Then stop calling them version NUMBERS.
While you, and other people, continue to do
On Jan 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
I think it's already been said, or maybe it went by on Twitter, but there's a
special layer of hell for DBAs who store phone numbers, social security
numbers and PIN numbers as numbers.
Ditto with postal codes -- especially
Philip Newton wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 6:38 PM, Michael G Schwern schw...@pobox.com wrote:
I think it's already been said, or maybe it went by on Twitter, but there's a
special layer of hell for DBAs who store phone numbers, social security
numbers and PIN numbers as numbers.
Ditto with postal
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Or, ya know, Canadians. Damn Canadians with their alphanumeric postal codes!!
Here's a do you mind if I tell you how we [uhh, they] do it in Canada
moment...
Canadian Postal Codes are decidedly non-hateful. They avoided the
Martin Ebourne wrote:
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Or, ya know, Canadians. Damn Canadians with their alphanumeric postal codes!!
Here's a do you mind if I tell you how we [uhh, they] do it in Canada
moment...
Canadian Postal Codes are decidedly non-hateful.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:54:27AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 10:26, David Cantrell wrote:
I thought I'd already explained that the difference between 1.02 and
1.03 is a bug fix.
So 1.02 is 1.0.2?
No, it's 1.02. These days I eschew complex version numbers precisely
On 2008-01-15, at 15:44, Michael G Schwern wrote:
I argue that it *will* make things worse for the members of the
third group for two critical reasons.
Worse than just using a date, which contains *zero* information,
because it's something you have anyway?
There's no consensus about what
On 2008-01-15, at 18:21, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
I'm fond of the system of versioning where the major releases are
indicated by shed count and forward-compatible releases are
indicated by
a quantity of bicycles.
You do that and you're going to get people using the shed color and
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 06:26:19PM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 18:21, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
I'm fond of the system of versioning where the major releases are
indicated by shed count and forward-compatible releases are
indicated by
a quantity of bicycles.
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-16 00:25]:
Apparently PHP does something really stupid but I don't even
want to know what it is.
Because you asked not to hear about it: they have changed major
language semantics in point releases more than a few times.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
On 2008-01-16, at 05:00, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-16 00:25]:
Apparently PHP does something really stupid but I don't even
want to know what it is.
Because you asked not to hear about it: they have changed major
language semantics in point
your suggestion each consecutive pair compares cleanly:
* 1.8 1.9 as floats (because there are no version objects involved, so
Perl doesn't know these are version numbers being compared)
* 1.9 1.9.1 because the latter being an object triggers upgrading the
former to an object equivalent
compare to versions as if
they were versions. So that X.YY is the same as X.YY.0 for
purposes of comparison.
* 1.9 1.9.1 because the latter being an object triggers upgrading
the former to an object equivalent to 1.9.0
But Perl doesn't know 1.9.1 is a version number
On 2008-01-16, at 04:01, Smylers wrote:
Consider a project with these releases in turn:
1.8
1.9
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.10
1.11
Once you go to 1.9.1, then after 1.9.2 the next version would be 1.10.0.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 09:17:34AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-16, at 04:01, Smylers wrote:
Consider a project with these releases in turn:
1.8
1.9
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.10
1.11
Once you go to 1.9.1, then after 1.9.2 the next version would be 1.10.0.
Not everyone
Phil Pennock wrote:
On 2008-01-15 at 23:26 +0100, Abigail wrote:
*HATE*
For this mailing-list, that's a remarkably on-topic post to be #100 in
the thread.
-Phil
Hate heartbeat?
On 15/01/2008, Abigail abig...@abigail.be wrote:
*HATE*
This thread is turning into an epic hatefest. Unfortunately, it is
impossible for the outside world to see, because Mariachi (or its
Apache configuration) can't deal with the . in
phil.pennock.hates-software.com. Plus the URL
that by assigning another name to use but I
don't have the password and there's no password reset/mail option. So I
sent mail to -admin yesterday.
-Phil, wondering if he truly wants the world to see the piqued
strop-fest tantrum about Perl in general. Ah well, too late now.
identification
numbers you use to insecurely access your checking account.
I don't know what perl idiot decided that one kind of number had to act
(and be treated) like another kind of number just because they look
similar--sometimes, but not others--but let's not repeat the error,
shall we?
-josh
larger than MAXINT on most
computers in 1981, and yet MMDD is the scheme that we are
discussing as an alternative to n-tuples.
OK, let's pretend for a minute that I wasn't aware that universal
method was a technical term in Perl.
I assumed that you commented on it because you thought
On 2008-01-15, at 15:21, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Didn't I see something go by about an alpha/beta/gamma version
grammar?
For dealing with *other people's screwed up versioning*.
Sheesh.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
Do you mint version numbers based on gut feel? If not, then 1.02
vs 1.03 almost certainly tells you something more about those
releases of Tie::STDOUT than 20060705 vs 20070828 would have, eg.
that you didn't overhaul the internals in the
Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence
EIN KIRCHE! EIN KREDO! EIN PAPST!
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off the top
of my head that 1.03 was the most recent release.
So it doesn't tell me anything useful at all.
On the
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:02:11AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off the top
of my head that 1.03 was the most recent
.
Or the bug is a fix to what 99% of the users think was a bug and 1% uses
in production code as a useful feature.
Even test-cases can be broken.
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.10.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
11.23
On 2008-01-15, at 10:26, David Cantrell wrote:
I thought I'd already explained that the difference between 1.02 and
1.03 is a bug fix.
So 1.02 is 1.0.2? Then you do know something about it, and you're
going to be in trouble if you get more than 9 bug fixes.
But I wouldn't go so far as to
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off the top
of my head that 1.03 was the most recent release.
So it doesn't tell me anything
On 2008-01-15, at 14:00, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-15, at 08:13, David Cantrell wrote:
What bug was fixed I have no idea. I have only a hazy
recollection of
what features it has, and certainly couldn't have told you off
the top
of my head that 1.03 was
meanings AND to put all that information into an explicitly parsable metadata
release file (which, in the case of Perl, we conveniently have). Leave the
version number alone to indicate release progression.
--
60. “The Giant Space Ants” are not at the top of my chain of command.
-- The 213
On 2008-01-15 at 13:44 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
There are plenty of people out there which assume that Test::More, the
module which powers something like 80% of all Perl's testing, is unreliable
because it's version 0.74. The 0.x part says nothing about it's
reliability, it just
It was thus said that the Great Peter da Silva once stated:
On the other hand, for me, 1.5.4 versus 1.5.2 does tell me something
useful.
If a script worked on 1.5.2, it will work on 1.5.4 and it's supposed
to work on 1.6, and unless you hit a bug fixed in 1.5.2 it'll work on
1.5.1
On 2008-01-15, at 14:33, Sean Conner wrote:
Tell that to the PHP maintainers.
PHP is made of hate.
I treat PHP as plutonium, and stay sane by not touching it.
On 2008-01-14 at 06:48 -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
On 2008-01-14, at 05:13, Abigail wrote:
That's what I think as well. Unfortunally, PAUSE/CPAN/Perl think that
1.9 is just a shorthand for 1.900 and 1.10 is a shorthand for
1.100,
so if you've uploaded version 1.9, and then later upload 1.10
the coup de grace. Perl has
ceased to be my comfort language.
For the time being, I don't have a comfort language for personal
projects. But that just means that I'll use the languages I need to use
anyway; Python, because I use it at work so might as well get more
practice, instead
And my comfort language is whatever works.
The FreeBSD ports collection is perfect for that. I don't have to
worry about what some damn hairsplitting monks only interested in
their little religious language do. I just pull in the port, and at
the same time I get a nicely preconfigured
preconfigured build tree for the package that I know works and I
know has all its prerequisites taken care of.
Yeah, I use that same collection; it's what I rely upon. It doesn't
grok (AFAIK) two parallel Perl trees of the same version of Perl, but
will have parallel Perl 5.6 and 5.8; so now what about
* Phil Pennock phil.penn...@globnix.org [2008-01-15 16:05]:
I value Ports wy more than I value Perl threading.
Who in their right mind cares about threads on a system that
has a perfectly servicable fork(), anyway?
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Perl has been headed with multiple
installers all bickering with each other and all thinking that it's
enough for OS package management to have a manifest in the package
manager's format, with no thought to integrating into version
management.
And then there's the threading issue, requiring
sounds similar to the way Perl has been headed with multiple
installers all bickering with each other
Let me count here.
One.
http://search.cpan.org/dist/ExtUtils-MakeMaker/
Two.
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Build/
All the rest use one of those two.
And hey, the second one will even
On 2008-01-14 at 19:01 -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Phil Pennock wrote:
And then there's the threading issue, requiring parallel Perl installs.
Abort! Abort! Hate drifting wildly of target!
What crack are you on?
This was part of the original post and part of the hate. All software
On 2008-01-14, at 16:18, Phil Pennock quoted a very very unstable mind:
the real problem is that the version number on Parse::RecDescent went
down!
from 1.80 (which translates into 1.800.000) to 1.95.1 (which
translates
into 1.095.001).
OK. I thought I understood what was going on, but now
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* Peter da Silva pe...@taronga.com [2008-01-14T23:47:06]
On 2008-01-14, at 16:18, Phil Pennock quoted a very very unstable mind:
the real problem is that the version number on Parse::RecDescent went down!
from 1.80 (which
jrod...@hate.spamportal.net writes:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 08:09:39AM -0500, Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
1.80 means 1.80. 1.95.1 means 1.095001.
How in the nine hells of software hate doesn't it mean 1.950001 or
some such crap?
Because (I believe the reasoning goes) if 1.95.1 mapped to
?
It does if you tell it that 1.80 is a version number.
But Perl (unsurprisingly) also supports floating-point numbers, for use
with maths and things like that. And obviously such numbers need to be
tret as such, not as version numbers.
And, unfortunately, Perl (like most other languages
On 2008-01-15, at 10:43, Smylers wrote:
So if in all contexts where Perl knows it's dealing with a version
number it suddenly started interpreting 1.8 as a sequence of
integers it
would break code which has been running fine for years presuming that
1.8 1.75. That would've been hateful
On 2008-01-15, at 13:56, Michael G Schwern wrote:
That would make a project upgrading (or downgrading) to version
objects impossible -- or at least really noisy -- thus effectively
killing the version.pm project. I've seen a lot of projects filled
with self-hate, but not enough to strange
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 06:58:14PM +0100, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
To those looking for inspiration, I must recommend Acme::MetaSyntactic
as a source for random yet themed, er, words.
And no, it doesn't have version number problems anymore. It seems to be stuck
at 0.99 for a long
It was thus said that the Great Abigail once stated:
Man, sometimes I feel so tempted to put things like
$VERSION = 'yellow';
in my modules.
Quick! Can someone tell me which is older---Mac OS Tiger or Mac OS
Jaguar?
I remember a bunch of years ago a Linux module that would
On 2008-01-15, at 14:39, Sean Conner wrote:
Quick! Can someone tell me which is older---Mac OS Tiger or Mac OS
Jaguar?
Neither of these are versions. The corresponding versions (which is
what software would deal with) are 10.4.11 and 10.2.8.
In addition, everyone hauling out straw man
* jrod...@hate.spamportal.net [2008-01-15T08:37:19]
1.80 means 1.80. 1.95.1 means 1.095001.
How in the nine hells of software hate doesn't it mean 1.950001 or some
such crap? How is this defensible in any possible way?
It's emulating the behavior of perl itself.
~$ perl -v
?
It's emulating the behavior of perl itself.
~$ perl -v
This is perl, v5.10.0 built for darwin-2level
~$ perl -V
Summary of my perl5 (revision 5 version 10 subversion 0) configuration:
~$ perl -E 'say $]'
5.01
So as a general class, perl is indefensible. Thanks
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
